3jg\>*^^^^ 


ott^« 


''^^min 


'^■¥ 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


^^if. 


Shelf ^ 


Division     ,      X)  w.^^ 
Srftion ,  EHx> 

Number 


X\ 


THE    EXPOSITOR'S    BIBLE 


.  EDITED  BY  THE  REV, 

W.     ROBERTSON    NICOLL,    M,A.,    LL.D. 

Editor  of  "The  Ex/>osiior" 


THE    BOOK    OF    DANIEL 


F.     W.     FARRAR,     D.D.,     F.R.S, 


NEW  YORK 

A.    C.    ARMSTRONG    AND    SON 
51    EAST    TENTH    STREET 
1895 


THE     EXPOSITOR'S     BIBLE. 

Crown  Svo,  cloth^  price  $  1.50  each  vol. 

First  Series,  1887-8. 

Fifth  Series,  1891-2. 

,  Colossians. 

The  Psalms. 

By  A.  Maclarhn,  D.D, 

By  A.  Maclaren,  D.D.     Vol.  I. 

St.  Mark. 

1  and  2  Thessalonians. 

By  Very  Rev.  the  Dean  of  Armagh. 

By  James  Dennev,  D.D. 

Genesis. 

The  Book  of  Job. 

By  Prof.  Marcus  Dods,  D.D. 

By  R.  A.  Watson,  M.A.,  D.D. 

1  Samuel. 

Ephesians. 

By  Prof.   W.   G.  Blaikie,  D.D. 

By  Prof.  G.  G.  Findlav,  B.A. 

2  Samuel. 

The  Gospel  of  St.  John. 

By  the  same  Author. 

By  Prof.  M.  Dods,  D.D.    Vol.  II. 

Hebrews. 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

By  Principal  T.C.  Edwards.D.D. 

By  Prof.  Stokes,  D.D.    Vol.  II. 

Second  Series,  1888-9. 

Sixth  Series,  1892-3. 

Galatians. 

1   Kings. 

By  Ven.  Archdeacon  Farrar. 

By  Prof.  G.  G.  FiNDLAV,  B.A. 

The  Pastoral  Epistles. 

Philippians. 

By  Principal  Rainy,  D.D. 

By  Rev.  A.  Plummer,  D.D. 

Isaiah  i. — xxxix. 

Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Esther. 

By  Prof.    G.    A.   Smith,    D.D. 

By  Prof  W.  F.  Adeney,  M.A. 

Vol.  I. 

Joshua. 

The  Book  of  Revelation. 

By  Prof.  W.  G.  Blaikie,  D.D. 

By  Prof.  W.  Milligan,  D.D. 

The  Psalms. 

1  Corinthians. 

ByA.  Maclaren,  D.D.    Vol.11. 

By  Prof.  Marcus  Dods,  D.D. 

The  Epistles  of  St.  Peter. 

The  Epistles  of  St.  John. 

By  Prof.  Rawson  Lumby,  D.D. 

By  Rt.  Rev.  W.  Alexandhr,D.D. 

Seventh  Series,  1893-4. 

Third  Series,  1889-90. 

2  Kings. 

By  Ven.  Archdeacon  Farrar. 

Judges  and  Ruth. 

By  R.  A.  Watson,  M.A.,  D.D. 

Romans. 

Jeremiah. 

By  H.  C.  G.  MouLE,  M.A. 

By  Rev.  C.  J.  Ball,  M.A.  ' 

The  Books  of  Chronicles. 

Isaiah  XL. — lxvi.        ,  -' 

By  Prof.  W.  H.  Bennett,- M.A. 

By  Prof.   G.    A.   Smith,    D.D. 

2  Corinthians. 

Vol.11.              .      :■. 

By  James  Denney,  D.D. 

St.  Matthew.  . 

Numbers. 

By  Rev.  J.  Monro:Gibson,  D.D. 

By  R.  a. -Watson,  M.A.,  D.D. 

Exodus. 

The  Psalms. 

By  Very  Rev.  the  Dean  of  Armagh. 

-  ByA.  Maclaren, D.D.  Vol. III. 

St.  Luke.                   ' 

f. 

By  Rev.  H.  Burton,  M.A.      - 

EIGHTH  series,    1895-6. 

-Daniel. 

By  Ven.  Archdeacon  Farrar. 

Fourth  Series,  1890-1. 

Ecclesiastes. 

The  Book  of  Jeremiah. 

By  Rev.  Samuel  Cox,  D.D. 

By  Prof.  W.  H.  Bennett,  M.A. 

St.  James  and  St.  Jude. 

Deuteronomy. 

By  Rev.  A.  Plummer,  D.D. 

By  Prof.  Andrew  Harper,  B.D. 

Proverbs. 

The  Song  of  Solomon  and 

By  Rev.  R.  F.  Horton,  D.D. 

Lamentations. 

Leviticus. 

By  Prof.  W.  F.  Adeney,  M.A. 

By  Rev.  S.  H.  Keli  or,r,,  D.D. 

Ezekiel. 

The  Gospel  of  St.  John. 

By  Prof.  John  Skinner,  M.A. 

By  Prof.  M.  Dods,  D.D.    Vol.  I. 

The  Minor  Prophets. 

By  Prof.   G.    A.    Smith,    D.D.      . 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 
By  Prof.  Stokes,  D.D.    Vol.  I. 

Two  Vols. 

THE    BOOK    OF    DANIEL 


F.    W.    FARRAR,    D.D.,    F.R.S. 

LAIE   FELLOW   OF  TRINITY  COLLEGE,    CAMBRIDGE  ;    ARCHDEACON   OF 
WESTMINSTER 


X) 


NEW  YORK 

A.    C.    ARMSTRONG    AND    SON 

51    EAST  TENTH   STREET 

1895 


CONTENTS 

PART   I 

INTRODUCTION 

CHAPTER  I 

PAGE 

THE    HISTORIC   EXISTENCE    OF    THE    PROPHET    DANIEL     .         3 


CHAPTER   n 

GENERAL   SURVEY    OF    THE    BOOK. 

•         13 

I. 

THE    LANGUAGE           ..... 

•         13 

2. 

UNITY                  ...... 

.         24 

3. 

GENERAL   TONE            ..... 

.         27 

4. 

STYLE                   ...... 

.        29 

5. 

STANDPOINT    OF    ITS    AUTHOR 

•        31 

6. 

MORAL    ELEMENT       ..... 

•     34 

CHAPTER   HI 
PECULIARITIES    OF   THE    HISTORICAL   SECTION 


39 


CHAPTER   IV 
GENERAL    STRUCTURE   OF   THE    BOOK 

V 


.      63 


vi  CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  V 

PAGE 

THE   THEOLOGY   OF    THE    BOOK 67 


CHAPTER  VI 

PECULIARITIES    OF    THE   APOCALYPTIC    AND     PROPHETIC 

SECTION    OF   THE    BOOK 7 1 

CHAPTER   VII 
INTERNAL   EVIDENCE .       78 

CHAPTER  VIII 

EVIDENCE  IN  FAVOUR  OF  THE  GENUINENESS  UNCERTAIN 

AND    INADEQUATE  .  ...  .  .  .88 

CHAPTER   IX 

EXTERNAL      EVIDENCE       AND       RECEPTION      INTO      THE 

CANON 9^ 

CHAPTER    X 
SUMMARY   AND    CONCLUSION II3 


PART   II 

COMMENTARY  ON  THE  HISTORIC  SECTION 

CHAPTER    I 
THE   PRELUDE 1 23 

CHAPTER    II 
THE   DREAM-IMAGE    OF    RUINED    EMPIRES         .  .  .    I4I 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER    III 

PAGE 

THE   IDOL   OF   GOLD,    AND   THE    FAITHFUL   THREE  .    167 

CHAPTER    IV 
THE   BABYLONIAN   CEDAR,    AND   THE    STRICKEN    DESPOT    1 84 

CHAPTER    V 
THE    FIERY    INSCRIPTION 203 

CHAPTER    VI 

STOPPING   THE   MOUTHS    OF   LIONS  .  .  .  .    2l8 

PART   III 

THE  PROPHETIC  SECTION  OF  THE  BOOK 

CHAPTER    I 
VISION   OF   THE   FOUR   WILD   BEASTS       ....  ^233 

CHAPTER    II 
THE   RAM   AND   THE   HE-GOAT 252 

CHAPTER    III 
THE   SEVENTY   WEEKS 268 

CHAPTER    IV 
INTRODUCTION    TO    THE   CONCLUDING    VISION  .  .    292 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER    V 

PAGE 

AN    ENIGMATIC    PROPHECY    PASSING    INTO    DETAILS    OF 

THE   REIGN    OF   ANTIOCHUS    EPIPHANES  .  .    299 


CHAPTER    VI 
THE   EPILOGUE      .  .  .  .  .  .  .  •    319 

APPENDIX 
APPROXIMATE   CHRONOLOGICAL   TABLES  .  .  .    333 

GENEALOGICAL     TABLE     OF     THE     LAGID^,     PTOLEMIES, 

AND   SELEUCIDiE 334 


AUTHORITIES    CONSULTED 

COMMENTARIES     AND     TREATISES 

The  chief  Rabbinic  Commentaries  were  those  of  Rashi  (f  1105)  ; 
Abn  Ezra  (t  1167)  ;  Kimchi  (f  1240)  ;  Abrabanel  (f  1507).' 

The  chief  Patristic  Commentary  is  that  by  St.  Jerome.  Frag- 
ments are  preserved  of  other  Commentaries  by  Origen,  Hippo- 
lytus,  Ephraem  Syrus,  Julius  Africanus,  Theodoret,  Athanasius, 
Basil,  Eusebius,  Polychronius,  etc.  (Mai,  Script.  Vet.  Nov.  Coll.,  i.). 

The  vScholastic  Commentary  attributed  to  St.  Thomas  Aquinas 
is  spurious. 

The  chief  Commentaries  of  the  Reformation  period  are  those 
by:- 

Luther,  Auslegung  d.  Proph.  Dan.,  1530-46  {0pp.  Germ.,  vi., 
ed.  Walch). 

CEcolampadius,  In  Dan.  libri  duo.     Basle,  1530. 

Melancthon,  Comm.  in  Dan.     Wittenburg,  1 543. 

Calvin,  Prcelect.  in  Dan.     Geneva,  1563. 

Modern  Commentaries  are  numerous  ;  among  them  we  may 
mention  those  by  : — 

Newton,  Observations  upon  the  Prophecies.     London,  1733. 

Bertholdt,  Daniel.     Erlangen,  1806-8. 

Rosenmiiller,  Scholia.     1832. 

Havernick.     1832  and  1838. 

Hengstenberg.  •    1831. 

There  are  Commentaries  by  Von  Lengerke,  1835  ;  Maurer,  1838  ; 
Hitzig,  1850;  Ewald,  1867  ;  Kliefoth,  1868;  Keil,  1869;  Kranich- 
feld,  1868;  Kamphausen,  1868;  Meinhold  {Ktirzgefasster  Kom- 
mentar\    1889 ;    Auberlen,    1857 ;   Archdeacon   Rose  and   Prof. 

'  The  Commentary  which  passes  as  that  of  Saadia  the  Gaon  is  said 
to  be  spurious.     His  genuine  Commentary  only  exists  in  manuscript. 


AUTHORITIES   CONSULTED 


J.  M.  Fuller  {Speaker's  Commentary),  1876;  Rev,  H.  J.  Deane 
(Bishop  Ellicott's  Commentary),  1884;  Zockler  (Lange's  ^/^(?/- 
werk),  1889;  A.  A.  Bevan  {Cambridge),  1893;  Meinhold,  Bei- 
trcige,  1888. 

The  latest  Commentary  which  has  appeared  is  that  by  Haupt- 
pastor  Behrmann,  in  the  Handko?nmeittar  z.  Alien  Testa?nent. 
Gottingen,  1894. 

Discussions  in  the  various  Introductions  {Einleitungen,  etc.)  by 
Bleek,  De  Wette,  Keil,  Stalielin,  Reuss,  Comely,  Dr.  S.  Davidson, 
Kleinert,  Cornill,  Konig,  etc. 

LIVES    OF    DANIEL 

Pseudo-Epiphanius,  Opera,  ii.  243. 

H.  J.  Deane,  Daniel  (Men  of  the  Bible).     1892. 

THERE    ARE    ARTICLES    ON    DANIEL    IN 

Winer's  Realworterbuch,  Second  Edition. 

Delitzsch,  in  Herzog's  Real-E7icyclopddie. 

Graf,  in  Schenkel's  Bibel-Lexicon,  i.  564. 

Bishop  Westcott,  in  Dr.  W.  Smith's  Bible  Dictionary,  New 
Edition.     1893. 

Hamburger,  Real-Encyclopddiey  ii.,  s.v.  "  Geheimlehre,"  p.  265  ; 
s.vv.  "  Daniel,"  pp.  223-225  ;  and  Heiliges  Schriftthic7n. 

TREATISES 

'RM?>^^\'W2LrWi\^2i'w,  Theological  Review.     1865. 

Prof.  Margoliouth,  The  Expositor.     April  1890. 

Prof.  J.  M.  Fuller,  The  Expositor,  Third  Series,  vols,  i.,  ii. 

T.  K.  Cheyne,  Encyclopcsdia  Britannica,  vi.  803. 

Prof.  Sayce,  The  Higher  Criticism  and  the  Monume7tts.     1 894. 

Prof.  S.  R.  Driver,  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old 
Testameiit,  pp.  458-483.     1891. 

Prof.  S.  Leathes,  in  Book  by  Book,  pp.  241-251. 

C.  von  Orelli,  Alttestamentliche  Weissagung,  p.  454.  Wien, 
1882. 

Meinhold,  Die  Geschichtlichen  Hagiographen  (Strack  and 
Zockler,  Kurzgefasster  Konmietitar,  1889). 

Meinhold,  Erkldi'ung  des  Buchcs  Daniels.     1889. 


A  UTII OR/TIES  CONS  UL  TED 


TREATISES    OR   DISCUSSIONS   BY 

Dr.  Pusey,  Daniel  the  Prophet.     1864. 

T.  R.  Birks,  The  Later  Visions  of  Daniel.     1846, 

Ellicott,  Horce  Apocalypticce .     1844. 

Tregelles,  Re?ftarks  on  the  Prophetic  Visio?is  of  Daniel.     1852. 

Hilgenfeld,  Die  Propheten  Ezra  u.  Daniel.     1863. 

Baxmann,  Stud.  u.  Krit.^  iii.  489  ff.     1863. 

Desprez,  Daniel.     1865. 

Hofmann,  Weissagung  und  Erfullung^  i.  276-316. 

Kuenen,  Prophets  aftd  Prophecy  in  Israel,  E.  Tr.     1877. 

Evvald,  Die  Prophete7t  des  Alien  Bundes,  iii.  298.     1868. 

Hilgenfeld,  Die  jUdische  Apokalyptic.     1857. 

Lenormant,  La  Divination  chez  les  Chaldeans.     1875. 

Fabre  d'Envieu,  Le  livre  du  Prophete  Daniel.     1888. 

Hebbelyuck,  De  auctoritate  libr.  Danielis.     1887. 

Kohler,  Bibl.  Geschichte.     1893. 


INSCRIPTIONS   AND   MONUMENTS 

Babylonian,  Persian,  and  Median  inscriptions  bearing  on  the 
Book  of  Daniel  are  given  by  : — 

Schrader,  Keilinschriften  tmd  d.  A.  T.,  E.  Tr.,  1885-88; 
and  in  Records  of  the  Past.  See  too  Corpus  Inscriptionum 
Semiticaru?n. 

Sayce,  The  Higher  Criticism,  pp.  497-537. 

These  inscriptions  have  been  referred  to  also  by  Cornill, 
Nestle,  Noldeke,  Lagarde,  etc. 


HISTORIES    AND    OTHER    BOOKS 

Sketches  and  fragments  of  many  ancient  historians : — 

Josephus,  Antiquitates  Judaicce,  11.  x.,  xi,,  xii. 

The  Books  of  Maccabees. 

Piideaux,  Connection  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  ed. 
Oxford.     1828. 

Evvald,  Gesch.  des  Volkes  Israel.     1843-50. 

Gratz,  Gesch.  der  Juden,  Second  Edition.     1863. 

Jost,  Gesch.  d.  Jtidenthums  tmd  seinen  Sekten,  \.  90-116. 
Leipzig,  1857. 


AUTHORITIES  CONSULTED 


Herzfeld,  Gesch.  des  Volkes  Israel^  ii.  416.     1863. 

Van  Oort,  Bible  for  Young  People,  E.  Tr.     1877. 

Kittel,  Gesch.  d.  Hebraer,  ii.     1892. 

Schiirer,  Gesch.  d.jiidischen  Volkes.    Leipzig,  1890. 

Jahn,  Hebrew  Commonwealth,  E,  Tr.     1828. 

Droysen,  Gesch.  d.  Hellenismus,  ii.  211. 

E.  Meyer,  Gesch.  d.  Alterthtmis,  i. 

SPECIAL    TREATISES 

Delitzsch,  Messianische  Weissagangen.     Leipzig,  1890. 

Riehm,  Die  Messianische  Weissagung.     Gotha,  1875. 

Knabenbauer,  Comment  in  Daniel,  prophet,  Lament..,  et 
Baruch.     1891. 

Kuenen,  Religion  of  Israel,  E.  Tr.     1874. 

Bludau,  De  Alex,  interpe.  Danielis  indole.     1891. 

Noldeke,  D.  Alttest.  Literatur.     1868. 

Fraidl,  Exegese  d.  70  Wochen  Daniels.     1883. 

Menken,  Die  Monarchietibild.     1887. 

Kamphausen,  Das  Buch  Daniel  in  die  neuere  Geschichts- 
forschung.     Leipzig,  1893. 

Lennep,  De  Zeventig  Jaarweken  van  Daniel.     Utrecht,  1888. 

Dr.  M.  Joel,  Notizen  zum  Buche  Daniel.     Breslau,  1873. 

Derenbourg,  Les  Mots  grecs  dans  le  Livre  biblique  de  Daniel. 
Melanges  Graux,  1888. 

Cornill,  Die  Siebzig  Jahrwochen  Daniels.     1889. 

Wolf,  Die  Siebzig  Wochen  Daniels.     1859. 

Sanday,  Inspiration  (Bampton  Lectures).     1894. 

Sayce,  Hibbert  Lectures.     1 887. 

Roszmann,  Die  Makkabeische  Erhebung. 

J.  F.  Hoffmann,  Antiochus  IV.  {Epiphanes).     1873. 

Speaker's  Commentary  on  Tobit,  i,  2  Maccabees,  etc.     1888. 


PART    I 
INTRO  D  UCTION 

'E7U)  ix.kv  oZv  irepl  tovtwv  ws  eSpov  Kal  dv&yvwv,  oOtws  ^pa\f/a'  el 
de  Tis  dXXws  do^d^eiv  ^ovkyjaeraL  ire  pi  avrwv  dvejK'KTjTov  c'x^w  Tr)P 
irepoyvwixoavvrfv. — Josephus,  Antt,  X.  ii.  7. 


CHAPTER   I 

THE  HISTORIC  EXISTENCE  OF  THE  PROPHET  DANIEL 
"Trothe  is  the  hiest  thinge  a  man  may  kepe." — Chaucer. 

WE  propose  in  the  following  pages  to  examine 
the  Book  of  the  Prophet  Daniel  by  the  same 
general  methods  which  have  been  adopted  in  other 
volumes  of  the  Expositor's  Bible.  It  may  well  happen 
that  the  conclusions  adopted  as  regards  its  origin  and 
its  place  in  the  Sacred  Volume  will  not  command  the 
assent  of  all  our  readers.  On  the  other  hand,  we  may 
feel  a  reasonable  confidence  that,  even  if  some  are 
unable  to  accept  the  views  at  which  we  have  arrived, 
and  which  we  have  here  endeavoured  to  present  with 
fairness,  they  will  still  read  them  with  interest,  as 
opinions  which  have  been  calmly  and  conscientiously 
formed,  and  to  which  the  writer  has  been  led  by  strong 
conviction. 

All  Christians  will  acknowledge  the  sacred  and 
imperious  duty  of  sacrificing  every  other  consideration 
to  the  unbiassed  acceptance  of  that  which  we  regard  as 
truth.  Further  than  this  our  readers  will  find  much  to 
elucidate  the  Book  of  Daniel  chapter  by  chapter,  apart 
from  any  questions  which  affect  its  authorship  or  age. 

But  I  should  like  to  say  on  the  threshold  that, 
though  I  am  compelled  to  regard  the  Book  of  Daniel 
as  a  work  which,  in  its  present  form,  first  saw  the 
light  in  the  days  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and  though 
I    believe   that   its    six   magnificent    opening   chapters 


THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


were  never  meant  to  be  regarded  in  any  other  light 
than  that  of  moral  and  religious  Haggadoth^  yet  no 
words  of  mine  can  exaggerate  the  value  which  I  attach 
to  this  part  of  our  Canonical  Scriptures.  The  Book, 
as  we  shall  see,  has  exercised  a  powerful  influence 
over  Christian  conduct  and  Christian  thought.  Its 
right  to  a  place  in  the  Canon  is  undisputed  and  in- 
disputable, and  there  is  scarcely  a  single  book  of  the 
Old  Testament  which  can  be  made  more  richly  **  pro- 
fitable for  teaching,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for 
instruction  in  righteousness,  that  the  man  of  God  may 
be  complete,  completely  furnished  unto  every  good 
work."  Such  religious  lessons  are  eminently  suitable 
for  the  aims  of  the  Expositor's  Bible.  They  are  not 
in  the  slightest  degree  impaired  by  those  results  of 
archaeological  discovery  and  *'  criticism "  which  are 
now  almost  universally  accepted  by  the  scholars  of 
the  Continent,  and  by  many  of  our  chief  English  critics. 
Finally  unfavourable  to  the  authenticity,  they  are  yet 
in  no  way  derogatory  to  the  preciousness  of  this  Old 
Testament  Apocalypse. 

The  first  question  which  we  must  consider  is,  "  What 
is  known  about  the  Prophet  Daniel  ?  " 

I.  If  we  accept  as  historical  the  particulars  narrated 
of  him  in  this  Book,  it  is  clear  that  few  Jews  have  ever 
risen  to  so  splendid  an  eminence.  Under  four  power- 
ful kings  and  conquerors,  of  three  different  nationalities 
and  dynasties,  he  held  a  position  of  high  authority 
among  the  haughtiest  aristocracies  of  the  ancient  world. 
At  a  very  early  age  he  was  not  only  a  satrap,  but  the 
Prince  and  Prime  Minister  over  all  the  satraps  in 
Babylonia  and  Persia;  not  only  a  Magian,  but  the 
Head  Magian,  and  Chief  Governor  over  all  the  wise  men 


The  historic  existence  of  the  prophet     5 


of  Babylon.  Not  even  Joseph,  as  the  chief  ruler  over 
all  the  house  of  Pharaoh,  had  anything  like  the  extensive 
sway  exercised  by  the  Daniel  of  this  Book.  He  was 
placed  by  Nebuchadrezzar  "  over  the  whole  province 
of  Babylon  "  ;  ^  under  Darius  he  was  President  of  the 
Board  of  Three  to  "  whom  all  the  satraps  "  sent  their 
accounts;^  and  he  was  continued  in  office  and  prosperity 
under  Cyrus  the  Persian.^ 

II.  It  is  natural,  then,  that  we  should  turn  to  the 
monuments  and  inscriptions  of  the  Babylonian,  Persian, 
and  Median  Empires  to  see  if  any  mention  can  be 
found  of  so  prominent  a  ruler.  But  hitherto  neither 
has  his  name  been  discovered,  nor  the  faintest  trace 
of  his  existence. 

III.  If  we  next  search  other  non-Biblical  sources 
of  information,  we  find  much  respecting  him  in  the 
Apocrypha — ''The  Song  of  the  Three  Children,"  ''The 
Story  of  Susanna,"  and  "  Bel  and  the  Dragon."  But 
these  additions  to  the  Canonical  Books  are  avowedly 
valueless  for  any  historic  purpose.  They  are  romances, 
in  which  the  vehicle  of  fiction  is  used,  in  a  manner 
which  at  all  times  was  popular  in  Jewish  Hterature, 
to  teach  lessons  of  faith  and  conduct  by  the  example 
of  eminent  sages  or  saints.^     The  few  other  fictitious 

'  Dan.  ii.  48. 

^  Dan.  V.  29,  vi.  2. 

^  Dan.  vi.  28.  There  is  a  Daniel  of  the  sons  of  Ithamar  in  Ezra  viii.  2, 
and  among  those  who  sealed  the  covenant  in  Neh.  x.  6. 

'  For  a  full  account  of  the  Agada  (also  called  Agadtha  and  Haggada), 
I  must  refer  the  reader  to  Hamburger's  Real-Encyklopddie  fur  Bibel 
imd  Talmud,  ii.  19-27,  921-934.  The  first  two  forms  of  the  words  are 
Aramaic ;  the  third  was  a  Hebrew  form  in  use  among  the  Jews  in 
Babylonia.  The  word  is  derived  from  133^  "to  say"  or  "explain." 
Halacha  was  the  rule  of  religious  praxis,  a  sort  of  Directorium 
Judaicum  :  Haggada  was  the  result  of  free  religious  reflection.  See 
further  Strack,  Einl.  in  den  Thalmud,  iv.  122. 


THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


fragments  preserved  by  Fabricius  have  not  the  smallest 
importance/  Josephus,  beyond  mentioning  that  Daniel 
and  his  three  companions  were  of  the  family  of  King 
Zedekiah,^  adds  nothing  appreciable  to  our  information. 
He  narrates  the  story  of  the  Book,  and  in  doing  so 
adopts  a  somewhat  apologetic  tone,  as  though  he 
specially  declined  to  vouch  for  its  historic  exactness. 
For  he  says  :  "  Let  no  one  blame  me  for  writing  down 
everything  of  this  nature,  as  I  find  it  in  our  ancient 
books :  for  as  to  that  matter,  I  have  plainly  assured 
those  that  think  me  defective  in  any  such  point,  or 
complain  of  my  management,  and  have  told  them,  in 
the  beginning  of  this  history,  that  I  intended  to  do 
no  more  than  to  translate  the  Hebrew  books  into  the 
Greek  language,  and  promised  them  to  explain  these 
facts,  without  adding  anything  to  them  of  my  own,  or 
taking  anything  away  from  them."^ 

IV.  In  the  Talmud,  again,  we  find  nothing  historical. 
Daniel  is  always  mentioned  as  a  champion  against 
idolatry,  and  his  wisdom  is  so  highly  esteemed,  that, 
"  if  all  the  wise  men  of  the  heathen,"  we  are  told,  ''  were 
on  one  side,  and  Daniel  on  the  other,  Daniel  would  still 
prevail."*  He  is  spoken  of  as  an  example  of  God's 
protection  of  the  innocent,  and  his  three  daily  prayers 
are  taken  as  our  rule  of  life.^  To  him  are  applied 
the  verses  of  Lam.  iii.  55-57:  "I  called  upon  Thy 
name,  O  Lord,  out  of  the  lowest  pit.  .  .  .  Thou  drewest 
near  in  the  day  that  I  called  :  Thou  saidst,  Fear  not. 
O   Lord,  Thou   hast   pleaded   the  causes  of  my  soul ; 

'  Fabricius,  Cod.  Pseudepigr.  Vet.  Test.,  i.  1 124. 

2  Jos.,  Antt.,  X.  xi.  7.  But  Pseudo-Epiphanius  (/?<?  Vit.  Dan.,  x.) 
says :  Tiyove  tCju  e^o'xw^  TrjS  ^a<rt.\i.K7Js  virrjpecriai.  So  too  the  Mtdrash 
on  Ruth,  7. 

3  Jos.,  Atttt.,  X.  X.  6.  ■•   Yoma,  f.  77.  ^  Berachoth,  f,  31. 


THE  HISTORIC  EXISTENCE   OF  THE  PROPHET       7 

Thou  hast  redeemed  my  Hfe."  We  are  assured  that 
he  was  of  Davidic  descent ;  obtained  permission  for 
the  return  of  the  exiles ;  survived  till  the  rebuilding 
of  the  Temple ;  lived  to  a  great  age,  and  finally  died 
in  Palestine.^  Rav  even  went  so  far  as  to  say,  "If 
there  be  any  like  the  Messiah  among  the  living,  it  is 
our  Rabbi  the  Holy :  if  among  the  dead,  it  is  Daniel."  ^ 
In  the  Avoth  of  Rabbi  Nathan  it  is  stated  that  Daniel 
exercised  himself  in  benevolence  by  endowing  brides, 
follovWng  funerals,  and  giving  alms.  One  of  the 
Apocryphal  legends  respecting  him  has  been  widely 
spread.  It  tells  us  that,  when  he  was  a  second  time 
cast  into  the  den  of  lions  under  Cyrus,  and  was  fasting 
from  lack  of  food,  the  Prophet  Habakkuk  was  taken 
by  a  hair  of  his  head  and  carried  by  the  angel  of  the 
Lord  to  Babylon,  to  give  to  Daniel  the  dinner  which 
he  had  prepared  for  his  reapers.^  It  is  with  reference 
to  this  Haggada  that  in  the  catacombs  Daniel  is  repre- 
sented in  the  lions'  den  standing  naked  between  two 
lions — an  emblem  of  the  soul  between  sin  and  death 
— and  that  a  youth  with  a  pot  of  food  is  by  his  side. 

There  is  a  Persian  apocalypse  of  Daniel  translated  by 
Merx  {Archiv,  i.  387),  and  there  are  a  few  worthless 

•  Sanhedrin,  f.  93.     Midrash  Rabba  on   Ruth,  7,  etc.,  quoted   by 
Hamburger,  Real-Encyclopddic,  i.  225. 

^  KiddushiUy  f.  72,  6;  Hershon,  Genesis  ace.  to  the  Talmud,  p.  471, 
'  Bel  and  the  Dragon,  33-39.  It  seems  to  be  an  old  Midrashic 
legend.  It  is  quoted  by  Dorotheas  and  Pseudo-Epiphanius,  and 
referred  to  by  some  of  the  Fathers.  Eusebius  supposes  another 
Habakkuk  and  another  Daniel ;  but  "  anachronisms,  literary  ex- 
travagances, or  legendary  character  are  obvious  on  the  face  of  such 
narratives.  Such  faults  as  these,  though  valid  against  any  pretensions 
to  the  rank  of  authentic  history,  do  not  render  the  stories  less  effective 
as  pieces  of  Haggadic  satire,  or  less  interesting  as  preserving  vestiges 
of  a  cycle  of  popular  legends  relating  to  Daniel"  (Rev.  C.  J.  Ball, 
Speaker's  Commentary,  on  Apocrj'pha,  ii.  350). 


THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


Mohammedan  legends  about  him  which  are  given  in 
D'Herbelot's  Bibliotheque  orientale.  They  only  serve  to 
show  how  widely  extended  was  the  reputation  which 
became  the  nucleus  of  strange  and  miraculous  stories. 
As  in  the  case  of  Pythagoras  and  Empedocles,  they 
indicate  the  deep  reverence  which  the  ideal  of  his  cha- 
racter inspired.  They  are  as  the  fantastic  clouds  which 
gather  about  the  loftiest  mountain  peaks.  In  later 
days  he  seems  to  have  been  comparatively  forgotten.^ 

These  references  would  not,  however,  suffice  to  prove 
Daniel's  historical  existence.  They  might  merely  result 
from  the  literal  acceptance  of  the  story  narrated  in  the 
Book.  From  the  name  *'  Daniel,"  which  is  by  no  means 
a  common  one,  and  means  "  Judge  of  God,"  nothing  can 
be  learnt.     It  is  only  found  in  three  other  instances.^ 

Turning  to  the  Old  Testament  itself,  we  have  reason 
for  surprise  both  in  its  allusions  and  its  silences.  One 
only  of  the  sacred  writers  refers  to  Daniel,  and  that 
is  Ezekiel.  In  one  passage  (xxviii.  3)  the  Prince  of 
Tyrus  is  apostrophised  in  the  words,  '^  Behold^  thou  art 
wiser  than  Daniel;  there  is  no  secret  that  they  can  hide 
from  thee."  In  the  other  (xiv.  14,  20)  the  word  of  the 
Lord  declares  to  the  guilty  city,  that  ''though  these 
three  men,  Noah,  Daniel,  and  Job,  were  in  it,  they 
should  deliver  but  their  own  souls  by  their  righteous- 
ness " ;  "they  shall  deliver  neither  son  nor  daughter."^ 


'  Hettinger,  Hist.  Orientalis,  p.  92. 

"^  Ezra  viii.  2;  Neh.  x.  6.  In  i  Chron.  iii.  i  Daniel  is  an  alterna- 
tive name  for  David's  son  Chileab — perhaps  a  clerical  error.  If  so,  the 
names  Daniel,  Mishael,  Azariah,  and  Hananiah  are  only  found  in  the 
two  post-exilic  books,  whence  Kamphausen  supposes  them  to  have 
been  borrowed  by  the  writer. 

^  No  valid  arguments  can  be  adduced  in  favour  of  Winckler's  sug- 
gestion that  Ezek.  xxviii.  i-io,  xiv.  14-20,  are  late  interpolations.  In 
these  passages  the  name  is  spelt  ^NH  ;  not,  as  in  our  Book,  Pt^.^J*]. 


THE  HISTORIC  EXISTENCE  OF  THE  PROPHET      g 


The  last  words  may  be  regarded  as  a  general  allusion, 
and  therefore  we  may  pass  over  the  circumstance  that 
Daniel — who  was  undoubtedly  a  eunuch  in  the  palace 
of  Babylon,  and  who  is  often  pointed  to  as  a  fulfilment 
of  the  stern  prophecy  of  Isaiah  to  Hezekiah^ — could 
never  have  had  either  son  or  daughter. 

But  in  other  respects  the  allusion  is  surprising. 

i.  It  was  very  unusual  among  the  Jews  to  elevate  their 
contemporaries  to  such  a  height  of  exaltation,  and  it 
is  indeed  startling  that  Ezekiel  should  thus  place  his 
youthful  contemporary  on  such  a  pinnacle  as  to  unite 
his  name  to  those  of  Noah  the  antediluvian  patriarch 
and  the  mysterious  man  of  Uz. 

ii.  We  might,  with  Theodoret,  Jerome,  and  Kimchi, 
account  for  the  mention  of  Daniel's  name  at  all  in  this 
connection  by  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  his  life  ;  ^ 
but  there  is  little  probability  in  the  suggestions  of 
bewildered  commentators  as  to  the  reason  why  his 
name  should  be  placed  between  those  of  Noah  and  Job. 
It  is  difficult,  with  Havernick,  to  recognise  any  climax  in 
the  order ;  ^  nor  can  it  be  regarded  as  quite  satisfactory 
to  say,  with  Delitzsch,  that  the  collocation  is  due  to  the 
fact  that  ''as  Noah  was  a  righteous  man  of  the  old 
world,  and  Job  of  the  ideal  world,  Daniel  represented 
immediately  the  contemporaneous  world."  ^  If  Job 
was  a  purely  ideal  instance  of  exemplary  goodness,  why 
may  not  Daniel  have  been  the  same  ? 

To  some  critics  the  allusion  has  appeared  so  strange 
that  they  have  referred  it  to  an  imaginary  Daniel  who 
had  lived  at  the  Court  of  Nineveh  during  the  Assyrian 

'  Isa.  xxxix.  7. 

^  See  Rosenmiiller,  Scholia,  ad  loc. 

^  Ezek.,  p.  207. 

*  Herzog,  R.  E.,  s.v. 


lo  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

exile ;  ^  or  to  some  m3^thic  hero  who  belonged  to  ancient 
days — perhaps,  like  Melchizedek,  a  contemporary  of 
the  ruin  of  the  cities  of  the  Plain.^  Ewald  tries  to  urge 
something  for  the  former  conjecture  ;  yet  neither  for  it 
nor  for  the  latter  is  there  any  tittle  of  real  evidence.^ 
This,  however,  would  not  be  decisive  against  the  hypo- 
thesis, since  in  i  Kings  iv.  3 1  we  have  references  to  men 
of  pre-eminent  wisdom  respecting  whom  no  breath  of 
tradition  has  come  down  to  us.^ 

iii.  But  if  we  accept  the  Book  of  Daniel  as  literal 
history,  the  allusion  of  Ezekiel  becomes  still  more  diffi- 
cult to  explain  ;  for  Daniel  must  have  been  not  only  a 
contemporary  of  the  prophet  of  the  Exile,  but  a  very 
youthful  one.  We  are  told — a  difficulty  to  which  we 
shall  subsequently  allude — that  Daniel  was  taken  captive 
in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim  (Dan.  i.  i),  about  the 
year  b.c.  606.  Ignatius  says  that  he  was  twelve  years 
old  when  he  foiled  the  elders ;  and  the  narrative  shows 
that  he  could  not  have  been  much  older  when  taken 
captive.^  If  Ezekiel's  prophecy  was  uttered  b.c.  584, 
Daniel  at  that  time  could  only  have  been  twenty-two  : 
if  it  was  uttered  as  late  as  e.g.  572,®  Daniel  would  still 
have  been  only  thirty-four,  and  therefore  little  more 
than  a  youth  in  Jewish  eyes.  It  is  undoubtedly  sur- 
prising that  among  Orientals,  who  regard  age  as  the 
chief  passport  to  wisdom,  a  living  youth  should  be  thus 
canonised  between  the  Patriarch  of  the  Deluge  and  the 
Prince  of  Uz. 

*  Ewald,  Proph.  d.  Alt.  Bund.,  ii.  560 ;  De  Wette,  Einleit.,  §  253. 
^  So  Von  Lengerke,  Dan.,  xciii.  ff/;  Hitzig,  Dan.,  viii. 

^  He  is  followed  by  Bunsen,  Gott  in  der  Gesch.,  i.  514. 

*  Reuss,  Heil.  Schrift.,  p.  570. 

s  Ignat.,  Ad  Magnes,  3  (Long  Revision  :  see  Lightfoot,  ii.,  §  ii., 
p.  749).  ^o\.oo\nPs.Mar.ad  Ignat.,  Ty.  Lightfoot  thinks  that  this  is  a 
transference  from  Solomon  {I.e.,  p.  727).  ^  See  Ezek.  xxix.  17. 


THE  HISTORIC  EXISTENCE   OF   THE  PROPHET     ii 

iv.  Admitting  that,  this  pinnacle  of  eminence  may 
have  been  due  to  the  pecuHar  splendour  of  Daniel's 
career,  it  becomes  the  less  easy  to  account  for  the 
total  silence  respecting  him  in  the  other  books  of  the 
Old  Testament — in  the  Prophets  who  were  contem- 
poraneous with  the  Exile  and  its  close,  like  Haggai, 
Zechariah,  and  Malachi ;  and  in  the  Books  of  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah,  which  give  us  the  details  of  the  Return.  No 
post-exilic  prophets  seem  to  know  anything  of  the 
Book  of  Daniel.-^  Their  expectations  of  Israel's  future 
are  very  different  from  his.^  The  silence  of  Ezra  is 
specially  astonishing.  It  has  often  been  conjectured 
that  it  was  Daniel  who  showed  to  Cyrus  the  prophecies 
of  Isaiah.^  Certainly  it  is  stated  that  he  held  the  very 
highest  position  in  the  Court  of  the  Persian  King ;  yet 
neither  does  Ezra  mention  his  existence,  nor  does 
Nehemiah — himself  a  high  functionary  in  the  Court  of 
Artaxerxes — refer  to  his  illustrious  predecessor.  Daniel 
outlived  the  first  return  of  the  exiles  under  Zerubbabel, 
and  he  did  not  avail  himself  of  this  opportunity  to 
revisit  the  land  and  desolate  sanctuary  of  his  fathers 
which  he  loved  so  well.*  We  might  have  assumed  that 
patriotism  so  burning  as  his  would  not  have  preferred 
to  st^y  at  Babylon,  or  at  Shushan,  when  the  priests 
and  princes  of  his  people  were  returning  to  the  Holy 
City.  Others  of  great  age  faced  the  perils  of  the 
Restoration ;  and  if  he  stayed  behind  to  be  of  greater 
use  to  his  countrymen,  we  cannot  account  for  the  fact 
that  he  is  not  distantly  alluded  to  in  the  record  which 

*  See  Zech.  ii.  6-10 ;  Ezek.  xxxvii.  9,  etc. 

^  See  Hag.  ii.  6-9,  20-23  ;  Zech.  ii.  5-17,  iii.  8-10  ;  Mai.  iii.  I. 
'  Ezra  (i.  i)  does  not  mention  the  striking  prophecies  of  the  later 
Isaiah  (xliv.  28,  xlv.  l),  but  refers  to  Jeremiah  only  (xxv.  12,  xxix.  10). 

*  Dan.  x.  I-18,  vi.  10. 


12  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

tells  how  "  the  chief  of  the  fathers,  with  all  those  whose 
spirit  God  had  raised^  rose  up  to  go  to  build  the  House 
of  the  Lord  which  is  in  Jerusalem."  ^  That  the  difficulty 
was  felt  is  shown  by  the  Mohammedan  legend  that 
Daniel  did  return  with  Ezra,^  and  that  he  received  the 
office  of  Governor  of  Syria,  from  which  country  he 
went  back  to  Susa,  where  his  tomb  is  still  yearly  visited 
by  crowds  of  adoring  pilgrims. 

V.  If  we  turn  to  the  New  Testament,  the  name  of 
Daniel  only  occurs  in  the  reference  to  "the  abomina- 
tion of  desolation,  spoken  of  by  Daniel  the  prophet."^ 
The  Book  of  Revelation  does  not  name  him,  but  is 
profoundly  influenced  by  the  Book  of  Daniel  both  in 
its  form  and  in  the  symbols  which  it  adopts.* 

vi.  In  the  Apocrypha  Daniel  is  passed  over  in 
complete  silence  among  the  lists  of  Hebrew  heroes 
enumerated  by  Jesus  the  son  of  Sirach.  We -are  even 
told  that  "  neither  was  there  a  man  born  like  unto 
Joseph,  a  leader  of  his  brethren,  a  stay  of  the  people  " 
(Ecclus.  xlix.  15).  This  is  the  more  singular  because 
not  only  are  the  achievements  of  Daniel  under  four 
heathen  potentates  greater  than  those  of  Joseph  under 
one  Pharaoh,  but  also  several  of  the  stories  of  Daniel  at 
once  remind  us  of  the  story  of  Joseph,  and  even  appear 
to  have  been  written  with  silent  reference  to  the 
youthful  Hebrew  and  his  fortunes  as  an  Egyptian  slave 
who  was  elevated  to  be  governor  of  the  land  of  his 
exile. 


'  Ezra  i.  5.  2  D'Herbelot,  I.e. 

^  Matt.  xxiv.  15  ;  Mark  xiii.  14.  There  can  be  of  course  no  certainty 
that  the  "spoken  of  by  Daniel  the  prophet"  is  not  the  comment  of 
the  Evangehst. 

■•  See  ElHott,  Horce  Apocalypticce,  passim. 


CHAPTER    II 

GENERAL  SURVEY  OF  THE  BOOK 

I.  The  Language 

UNABLE  to  learn  anything  further  respecting  the 
professed  author  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  we  now 
turn  to  the  Book  itself  In  this  section  1  shall  merely 
give  a  general  sketch  of  its  main  external  phenomena, 
and  shall  chiefly  pass  in  review  those  characteristics 
which,  though  they  have  been  used  as  arguments 
respecting  the  age  in  which  it  originated,  are  not  abso- 
lutely irreconcilable  with  the  supposition  of  any  date 
between  the  termination  of  the  Exile  (b.c.  536)  and  the 
death  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  (b.c.  164). 

I.  First  we  notice  the  fact  that  there  is  an  inter- 
change of  the  first  and  third  person.  In  chapters  i.-vi. 
Daniel  is  mainly  spoken  of  in  the  third  person  :  rn 
chapters  vii.-xii.  he  speaks  mainly  in  the  first. 

Kranichfeld  tries  to  account  for  this  by  the  supposi- 
tion that  in  chapters  i.-vi.  we  practically  have  extracts 
from  Daniel's  diaries,^  whereas  in  the  remainder  of  the 
Book  he  describes  his  own  visions.  The  point  cannot 
be  much  insisted  upon,  but  the  mention  of  his  own 
high  praises  {e.g.,  in  such  passages  as  vi.  4)  is  perhaps 
hardly  what  we  should  have  expected. 

II.  Next  we   observe  that  the  Book  of  Daniel,  like 

'  Kranichfeld,  Das  Buck  Daniel,  p.  4* 
13 


14  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

the  Book  of  Ezra '  is  written  partly  in  the  sacred 
Hebrew,  partly  in  the  vernacular  Aramaic,  which  is 
often,  but  erroneously,  called  Chaldee.^ 

The  first  section  (i.  i-ii.  4«)  is  in  Hebrew.  The 
language  changes  to  Aramaic  after  the  words,  "  Then 
spake  the  Chaldeans  to  the  king  in  Syriac  "  (ii.  4  «)  ;  ^ 
and  this  is  continued  to  vii.  28.  The  eighth  chapter 
begins  with  the  words,  *'  In  the  third  year  of  the  reign 
of  King  Belshazzar  a  vision  appeared  unto  me,  even 
unto  me  Daniel  " ;  and  here  the  Hebrew  is  resumed, 
and  is  continued  till  the  end  of  the  Book. 

The  question  at  once  arises  why  the  two  languages 
were  used  in  the  same  Book. 

It  is  easy  to  understand  that,  during  the  course  of 
the  seventy  years'  Exile,  many  of  the  Jews  became 
practically  bilingual,  and  would  be  able  to  write  with 
equal  facility  in  one  language  or  in  the  other. 

This  circumstance,  then,  has  no  bearing  on  the  date 
of  the  Book.  Down  to  the  Maccabean  age  some  books 
continued  to  be  written  in  Hebrew.  These  books  must 
have  found  readers.  Hence  the  knowledge  of  Hebrew 
cannot  have  died  away  so  completely  as  has  been 
supposed.     The  notion  that  after  the  return  from  the 

'  See  Ezra  iv.  7,  vi.  18,  vii.  12-26. 

^  "  The  term  '  Chaldee '  for  the  Aramaic  of  either  the  Bible  or  the 
Targums  is  a  misnomer,  the  use  of  which  is  only  a  source  of  con- 
fusion "  (Driver,  p.  471).  A  single  verse  of  Jeremiah  (x.  ii)  is  in 
Aramaic  :  "  Thus  shall  ye  say  unto  them,  The  gods  who  made  not 
heaven  and  earth  shall  perish  frons  the  earth  and  from  under 
heaven."  Perhaps  Jeremiah  gave  the  verse  "to  the  Jews  as  an 
answer  to  the  heathen  among  whom  they  were"  (Pusey,  p.  ll). 

^  n''P"l{:?.;  LXX.,  2i;/)i(rTt — ?>.,  in  Aramaic.  The  word  may  be  a  gloss, 
as  it  is  in  Ezra  iv.  7  (Lenormant).  See,  however,  Kamphausen,  p.  14. 
We  cannot  here  enter  into  minor  points,  such  as  that  in  ii.-vi.  we 
have  •l^i'J  for  "see,"  and  in  vii.  2,  3,  -IIX  ;  which  Meinhold  takes  to 
prove  that  the  historic  section  is  earlier  than  the  prophetic. 


GENERAL  SURVEY 


Exile  Hebrew  was  at  once  superseded  by  Aramaic  is 
untenable.  Hebrew  long  continued  to  be  the  language 
normally  spoken  at  Jerusalem  (Neh.  xiii.  24),  and  the 
Jews  did  not  bring  back  Aramaic  with  them  to  Palestine, 
but  found  it  there.  ^ 

But  it  is  not  clear  why  the  linguistic  divisions  in 
the  Book  were  adopted.  Auberlen  says  that,  after  the 
introduction,  the  section  ii.  4a!-vii.  28  was  written  in 
Chaldee,  because  it  describes  the  development  of  the 
power  of  the  world  from  a  world-historic  point  of  view  ; 
and  that  the  remainder  of  the  Book  was  written  in 
Hebrew,  because  it  deals  with  the  development  of  the 
v/orld-powers  in  their  relation  to  Israel  the  people  of 
God.^  There  is  very  little  to  be  said  in  favour  of  a 
structure  so  little  obvious  and  so  highly  artificial.  A 
simpler  solution  of  the  difficulty  would  be  that  which 
accounts  for  the  use  of  Chaldee  by  saying  that  it  was 
adopted  in  those  parts  which  involved  the  introduc- 
tion of  Aramaic  documents.  This,  however,  would  not 
account  for  its  use  in  chap,  vii.,  which  is  a  chapter 
of  visions  in  which  Hebrew  might  have  been  naturally 
expected  as  the  vehicle  of  prophecy.  Strack  and  Mein- 
hold  think  that  the  Aramaic  and  Hebrew  parts  are  of 
different  origin.  Konig  supposes  that  the  Aramaic 
sections  were  meant  to  indicate  special  reference  to  the 
Syrians  and  Antiochus.^  Some  critics  have  thought  it 
possible  that  the  Aramaic  sections  were  once  written  in 
Hebrew.     That  the  text  of  Daniel  has  not  been  very 

»  Driver,  p.  471  ;  Noldeke,  Enc.  Brit.,  xxi.  647;  Wright,  Grammar, 
p.  16.  Ad.  Merx  has  a  treatise  on  Cur  in  lib.  Dan.  juxta  Hebr.  Ara- 
maica  sit  adhibita  dialedus,  1865  ;  but  his  solution,  "  Scriptorem  omnia 
quae  rudioribus  vulgi  ingeniis  apta  viderentur  Aramaice  praeposuisse  " 
is  wholly  untenable. 

-  Auberlen,  Dan.,  pp.  28,  29  (E.  Tr.).  "  Einleit.,  §  t^Zi. 


i6  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

carefully  kept  becomes  clear  from  the  liberties  to  which 
it  was  subjected  by  the  Septuagint  translators.  If  the 
Hebrew  of  Jer.  x.  ii  (a  verse  which  only  exists  in 
Aramaic)  has  been  lost,  it  is  not  inconceivable  that  the 
same  may  have  happened  to  the  Hebrew  of  a  section  of 
Daniel.^ 

The  Talmud  throws  no  light  on  the  question.  It 
only  says  that — 

i.  ^' The  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue  wrote  "^ — by 
which  is  perhaps  meant  that  they  ^'edited" — '*the  Book 
of  Ezekiel,  the  Twelve  Minor  Prophets,  the  Book  of 
Daniel,  and  the  Book  of  Ezra  "  ;  ^  and  that — 

ii.  "  The  Chaldee  passages  in  the  Book  of  Ezra  and 
the  Book  of  Daniel  defile  the  hands^^ 

The  first  of  these  two  passages  is  merely  an  assertion 
that  the  preservation,  the  arrangement,  and  the  admis- 
sion into  the  Canon  of  the  books  mentioned  was  due 
to  the  body  of  scribes  and  priests — a  very  shadowy 
and  unhistorical  body — known  as  the  Great  Synagogue.^ 

The  second  passage  sounds  startling,  but  is  nothing 
more  than  an  authoritative  declaration  that  the  Chaldee 
sections  of  Daniel  and  Ezra  are  still  parts  of  Holy 
Scripture,  though  not  written  in  the  sacred  language. 

It  is  a  standing  rule  of  the  Talmudists  that  All 
Holy  Scripture  defiles  the  hands — even  the  long-disputed 
Books  of  Ecclesiastes  and  Canticles.^     Lest  any  should 

'  Cheyne,  Enc.  Brit.,  s.v.  "  Daniel." 

"^  XITO.  See  2  Esdras  xiv.  22-48  :  "  In  forty  days  they  wrote  two 
hundred  and  four  books." 

^  Baba-Bathra,  f.  15,  6  :  comp.  Sanhedrtn,  f.  83,  6. 

•*  Yaddayim,  iv. ;  Mtsh.,  5. 

*  See  Rau,  De  Synag.  Magna.,  ii.  66  ff. ;  Kuenen,  Over  de  Mannen 
der  Groote  Synagoge,  1876  ;  Ewald,  Hist,  of  Israel^  v.  168-170  (E.  Tr.)  ; 
Westcott,  s.v.  ''Canon  '  (Smith's  Diet.,  i.  500). 

®  Yaddayim,  iii.  ;  Mish.,  5  ;  Hershon,  Treasures  of  the  Talmud, 
pp.  41-43- 


GENERAL  SURVEY  17 

misdoubt  the  sacredness  of  the  Chaldee  sections,  they 
are  expressly  included  in  the  rule.  It  seems  to  have 
originated  thus :  The  eatables  of  the  heave  offerings 
were  kept  in  close  proximity  to  the  scroll  of  the  Lav^, 
for  both  w^ere  considered  equally  sacred.  If  a  mouse 
or  rat  happened  to  nibble  either,  the  offerings  and  the 
books  became  defiled,  and  therefore  defiled  the  hands 
that  touched  them.^  To  guard  against  this  hypothetical 
defilement  it  vi^as  decided  that  all  handling  of  the 
Scriptures  should  be  follow^ed  by  ceremonial  ablutions. 
To  say  that  the  Chaldee  chapters  ''  defile  the  hands  " 
is  the  Rabbinic  v^ay  of  declaring  their  Canonicity. 

Perhaps  nothing  certain  can  be  inferred  from  the 
philological  examination  either  of  the  Hebrew  or  of 
the  Chaldee  portions  of  the  Book  ;  but  they  seem  to 
indicate  a  date  not  earlier  than  the  age  of  Alexander 
(b.c.  333).  On  this  part  of  the  subject  there  has  been 
a  great  deal  of  rash  and  incompetent  assertion.  It 
involves  delicate  problems  on  which  an  independent 
and  a  valuable  opinion  can  only  be  offered  by  the  merest 
handful  of  living  scholars,  and  respecting  which  even 
these  scholars  sometimes  disagree.  In  deciding  upon 
such  points  ordinary  students  can  only  weigh  the 
authority  and  the  arguments  of  specialists  who  have 
devoted  a  minute  and  lifelong  study  to  the  grammar 
and  history  of  the  Semitic  languages. 

I  know  no  higher  contemporary  authorities  on  the 
date  of  Hebrew  writings  than  the  late  veteran  scholar 
F.  Delitzsch  and  Professor  Driver. 

I.  Nothing  was  more  beautiful  and  remarkable  in  Pro- 
fessor Delitzsch  than  the  open-minded  candour  which 
compelled  him  to   the  last  to  advance  with  advancing 

'  Hershon  {I.e.)  refers  to  Shabbath,  f.  14,  i. 


THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


thought;  to  admit  all  fresh  elements  of  evidence;  to 
continue  his  education  as  a  Biblical  inquirer  to  the 
latest  days  of  his  life  ;  and  without  hesitation  to  correct, 
modify,  or  even  reverse  his  previous  conclusions  in 
accordance  with  the  results  of  deeper  study  and  fresh 
discoveries.  He  wrote  the  article  on  Daniel  in  Herzog's 
Real-Encyclopddie,  and  in  the  first  edition  of  that  work 
maintained  its  genuineness  ;  but  in  the  later  editions 
(iii.  470)  his  views  approximate  more  and  more  to  those 
of  the  Higher  Criticism.  Of  the  Hebrew  of  Daniel  he 
says  that  "it  attaches  itself  here  and  there  to  Eze- 
kiel,  and  also  to  Habakkuk  ;  in  general  character  it 
resembles  the  Hebrew  of  the  Chronicler  who  wrote 
shortly  before  the  beginning  of  the  Greek  period  (b.c. 
332),  and  as  compared  either  with  the  ancient  Hebrew, 
or  with  the  Hebrew  of  the  Mishnah  is  full  of  singu- 
larities and  harshnesses  of  style."  ^ 

So  far,  then,  it  is  clear  that,  if  the  Hebrew  mainly 
resembles  that  of  B.C.  332,  it  is  hardly  likely  that  it 
should  have  been  written  before  e.g.  536. 

Professor  Driver  says,  "  The  Hebrew  of  Daniel  in 
all  distinctive  features  resembles,  not  the  Hebrew  of 
Ezekiel,  or  even  of  Haggai  and  Zechariah,  but  that  of 
the  age  subsequent  to  Nehemiah  " — whose  age  forms 
the  great  turning-point  in  Hebrew  style. 

He  proceeds  to  give  a  list  of  linguistic  peculiarities 
in  support  of  this  view,  and  other  specimens  of  sen- 
tences constructed,  not  in  the  style  of  classical  Hebrew, 

'  Herzog,  I.e. ;  so  too  Konig,  Emleit,  §  387 :  "  Das  Hebr.  der  B. 
Dan.  ist  nicht  bios  nachexilisch  sondern  auch  nachchronistisch."  He 
instances  ribbo  (Dan.  xi.  12)  for  reboba,  "myriads"  (Ezek.  xvi.  7); 
and  tam'id,  "the  daily  burnt  oflfering"  (Dan.  viii.  Il),  as  post-Biblical 
Hebrew  for  'olath  hatamtd  (Neh.  x.  34),  etc.  Margoliouth  {Expositor, 
April  1890)  thinks  that  the  Hebrew  proves  a  date  before  B.C.  168  : 
on  which  view  see  Driver,  p.  483. 


GENERAL  SURVEY  19 

but  in  "the  later  uncouth  style"  of  the  Book  of 
Chronicles.  He  points  out  in  a  note  that  it  is  no 
explanation  of  these  peculiarities  to  argue  that,  during 
his  long  exile,  Daniel  may  have  partially  forgotten  the 
language  of  his  youth ;  "  for  this  would  not  account 
for  the  resemblance  of  the  new  and  decadent  idioms  to 
those  which  appeared  in  Palestine  independently  two 
hundred  and  fifty  years  afterwards."  ^  Behrmann,  in 
the  latest  commentary  on  Daniel,  mentions,  in  proof  of 
the  late  character  of  the  Hebrew  :  (i)  the  introduction 
of  Persian  words  which  could  not  have  been  used  in 
Babylonian  before  the  conquest  of  Cyrus  (as  in  i.  3,  5, 
xi.  45,  etc.  ;  (2)  many  Aramaic  or  Aramaising  words, 
expressions-,  and  grammatical  forms  (as  in  i.  5,  10,  12, 
16,  viii.  18,  22,  X.  17,  21,  etc.);  (3)  neglect  of  strict 
accuracy  in  the  use  of  the  Hebrew  tenses  (as  in  viii. 
14,  ix.  3  f.,  xi.  4f.,  etc.)  ;  (4)  the  borrowing  of  archaic 
expressions  from  ancient  sources  (as  in  viii.  26,  ix.  2, 
xi.  10,  40,  etc.)  ;  (5.)  the  use  of  technical  terms  and 
periphrases  common  in  Jewish  apocalypses  (xi.  6,  13, 
35,  40,  etc.).2 

2.  These  views  of  the  character  of  the  Hebrew  agree 
with  those  of  previous  scholars.  Bertholdt  and  Kirms 
declare  that  its  character  differs  toto  genere  from  what 
might  have  been  expected  had  the  Book  been  genuine. 
Gesenius  says  that  the  language  is  even  more  corrupt 
than  that  of  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Malachi.  Professor 
Driver  says  the  Persian  words  presuppose  a  period 
after  the  Persian  Empire  had  been  well  established  ; 
the  Greek  words  demand ^  the  Hebrew  supports ^  and  the 
Aramaic  permits  a  date  after  the  conquest  of  Palestine 
by  Alexander  the  Great.     De  Wette  and  Ewald  have 

^  Lit,  of  Old  Test,  pp.  473-476.  ^  Das  Buck  Dan.,  iii. 


20  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


pointed  out  the  lack  of  the  old  passionate  spontaneity 
of  early  prophecy  ;  the  absence  of  the  numerous  and 
profound  paronomasiae,  or  plays  on  words,  which  cha- 
racterised the  burning  oratory  of  the  prophets  ;  and 
the  peculiarities  of  the  style— which  is  sometimes 
obscure  and  careless,  sometimes  pompous,  iterative, 
and  artificial.^ 

3.  It  is  noteworthy  that  in  this  Book  the  name  of 
the  great  Babylonian  conqueror,  with  whom,  in  the 
narrative  part,  Daniel  is  thrown  into  such  close  con- 
nexion, is  invariably  written  in  the  absolutely  erroneous 
form  which  his  name  assumed  in  later  centuries— 
Nebuchadnezzar.  A  contemporary,  familiar  with  the 
Babylonian  language,  could  not  have  been  ignorant  of 
the  fact  that  the  only  correct  form  of  the  name  is 
Nebuchad;^zzar — />.,  Nebu-kudurri-utsur,  ''  Nebo  pro- 
tect the  throne."  2 

4.  But  the  erroneous  form  Neduchad;?ezzar  is  not 
the  only  one  which  entirely  militates  against  the 
notion  of  a  contemporary  writer.  There  seem  to  be 
other  mistakes  about  Babylonian  matters  into  which 
a  person  in  Daniel's  position  could  not  have  fallen. 
Thus  the  name  Belteshazzar  seems  to  be  connected 
in  the  writer's  mind  with  Bel,  the  favourite  deity  of 
Nebuchadrezzar;  but  it  can  only  mean  Balatu-utsur, 
*'  his  life  protect,"  which  looks  Hke  a  mutilation. 
Ahed-nego  is  an  astonishingly  corrupt  form  for  Abed- 
nabu,  ''  the  servant  of  Nebo."  Hammelzar,  Shadrach, 
Meshach,  Ashpenaz,  are  declared  by  Assyriologists  to 

'  See  Glassius,  Philol.  Sacr.,  p.  931  ;  Ewald,  Die  Proph.  d.  A. 
Bundes,  i.  48 ;  De  Wette,  Einleit.,  §  347. 

"^  Ezekiel  always  uses  the  correct  form  (xxvi.  7,  xxix.  18,  xxx.  10]. 
Jeremiah  uses  the  correct  form  except  in  passages  which  properly 
belong  to  the  Book  of  Kings. 


GENERAL  SURVEY 


be  "  out  of  keeping  with  Babylonian  science."  In  ii.  48 
signin  means  a  civil  ruler  ; — does  not  imply  Archimagus, 
as  the  context  seems  to  require,  but,  according  to  Lenor- 
mant,  a  high  civil  officer. 

.  5.  The  Aramaic  of  Daniel  closely  resembles  that 
of  Ezra.  Noldeke  calls  it  a  Palestinian  or  Western 
Aramaic  dialect,  later  than  that  of  the  Book  of  Ezra.^ 
It  is  of  earlier  type  than  that  of  the  Targums  of 
Jonathan  and  Onkelos  ;  but  that  fact  has  very  little 
bearing  on  the  date  of  the  Book,  because  the  differ- 
ences are  slight,  and  the  resemblances  manifold,  and 
the  Targums  did  not  appear  till  after  the  Christian 
Era,  nor  assume  their  present  shape  perhaps  before 
the  fourth  century.  Further,  '*  recently  discovered  in- 
scriptions have  shown  that  many  of  the  forms  in  which 
the  Aramaic  of  Daniel  differs  from  that  of  the  Targums 
were  actually  in  use  in  neighbouring  countries  down 
to  the  first  century  a.d."  ^ 

6.  Two  further  philological  considerations  bear  on 
the  age  of  the  Book. 

i.  One  of  these  is  the  existence  of  no  less  than 
fifteen  Persian  words  (according  to  Noldeke  and 
others),  especially  in  the  Aramaic  part.     These  words, 


'  Noldeke,  Seinit.  Spr.,  p.  30 ;  Driver,  p.  472 ;  Konig,  p.  387. 

-  Driver,  p.  472,  and  the  authorities  there  quoted ;  as  against 
McGill  and  Pusey  (Darnel,  pp.  45  ff.,  602  ff.).  Dr.  Pusey's  is  the 
fullest  repertory  of  arguments  in  favour  of  the  authenticity  of  Daniel, 
many  of  which  have  become  more  and  more  obviously  untenable 
as  criticism  advances.  But  he  and  Keil  add  little  or  nothing  to  what 
had  been  ingeniously  elaborated  by  Hengstenberg  and  Havernick. 
For  a  sketch  of  the  peculiarities  in  the  Aramaic  see  Behrmann, 
Darnel,  v.-x.  Renan  (Hist.  Gen.  des  Langites  Sem.,  p.  219)  exaggerates 
when  he  says,  "  La  langue  des  parties  chaldennes  est  beaucoup  plus 
basse  que  celle  des  fragments  chaldeens  du  Livre  d'Esdras,  et  s'incline 
beaucoup  vers  la  langue  du  Talmud."' 


THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


which  would  not  be  surprising  after  the  complete 
establishment  of  the  Persian  Empire,  are  surprising  in 
passages  which  describe  Babylonian  institutions  before 
the  conquest  of  Cyrus.-^  Various  attempts  have  been 
made  to  account  for  this  phenomenon.  Professor  Fuller 
attempts  to  show,  but  with  little  success,  that  some  of 
them  may  be  Semitic.^  Others  argue  that  they  are 
amply  accounted  for  by  the  Persian  trade  which,  as 
may  be  seen  from  the  Records  of  the  Past^^  existed 
between  Persia  and  Babylonia  as  early  as  the  days 
of  Belshazzar.  To  this  it  is  replied  that  some  of  the 
words  are  not  of  a  kind  which  one  nation  would  at 
once  borrow  from  another,"^  and  that  "  no  Persian 
words  have  hitherto  been  found  in  Assyrian  or 
Babylonian  inscriptions  prior  to  the  conquest  of 
Babylon  by  Cyrus,  except  the  name  of  the  god  Mithra." 

ii.  But  the  linguistic  evidence  unfavourable  to  the 
genuineness  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  is  far  stronger  than 
this,  in  the  startling  fact  that  it  contains  at  least  three 
Greek  words.  After  giving  the  fullest  consideration  to 
all  that  has  been  urged  in  refutation  of  the  conclusion, 
this  circumstance  has  always  been  to  me  a  strong  con- 
firm.ation  of  the  view  that  the  Book  of  Daniel  in  its 
present  form  is  not  older  than  the  days  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes. 

Those  three  Greek  words  occur  in  the  list  of  musical 
instruments  mentioned  in  iii.  5,  7,  10,  15.  They  are  : 
Dnn"'p,    kitharos,    KLOapi,<;,    '*  harp " ;    |nn:D3,  psanterin^ 

'  Meinhold,  Beitmge,  pp.  30-32  ;    Driver,  p.  470. 

"^  Speaker's  Commentary,  vi.  246-250. 

'  New  Series,  iii.  124. 

*  E.g.,  DTH,  "limb";  T*l,  "secret";  DJDD,  "message."  There  are 
no  Persian  words  in  Ezekiel,  Haggai,  Zechariah,  or  Malachi ;  they  are 
found  in  Ezra  and  Esther,  which  were  written  long  after  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Persian  Empire. 


GENERAL  SURVEY  23 

-r^dKrrjpLoVy  "psaltery";^  i^>iTi^)OySflmpdnyah,  a-v/iKpcoPia, 
A.V.  "  dulcimer,"  but  perhaps  ''  bagpipes."  ^ 

Be  it  remembered  that  these  musical  instruments  are 
described  as  having  been  used  at  the  great  idol-festival 
of  Nebuchadrezzar  (b.c.  550).  Now,  this  is  the  date  at 
which  Pisistratus  was  tyrant  at  Athens,  in  the  days  of 
Pythagoras  and  Polycrates,  before  Athens  became  a 
fixed  democracy.  It  is  just  conceivable  that  in  those 
days  the  Babylonians  might  have  borrowed  from  Greece 
the  word  kilhan's.^  It  is,  indeed,  supremely  unlikely^ 
because  the  harp  had  been  known  in  the  East  from  the 
earliest  days ;  and  it  is  at  least  as  probable  that  Greece, 
which  at  this  time  was  only  beginning  to  sit  as  a  learner 
at  the  feet  of  the  immemorial  East,  borrowed  the  idea 
of  the  instrument  from  Asia.  Let  it,  however,  be 
admitted  that  such  words  as  yayiriy  ''  wine "  (otz^o?), 
lapptdy  "  a  torch  "  (Xa/jbird^;),  and  a  few  others,  may  indi- 
cate some  early  intercourse  between  Greece  and  the 
East,  and  that  some  commercial  relations  of  a  rudi- 
mentary kind  were  existent  even  in  prehistoric  days."^ 

But  what  are  we  to  say  of  the  two  other  words  ? 
Both  are  derivatives.  Psalterion  does  not  occur  in 
Greek  before  Aristotle  (d.  322)  ;  nor  siimphonia  before 
Plato  (d.  347).  In  relation  to  music,  and  probably  as 
the  name  of  a  musical  instrument,  sumphonia  is  first 

'  The  change  oiniox /is  not  uncommon  :  comp.  fievriop,  <f>ivTaTOS,  etc. 

^  The  word  i^Dlb*,  Sab'ka,  also  bears  a  suspicious  resemblance 
to  (xafjL^vKT],  but  Athienaeus  says  (Detpnos.,  iv.  173)  that  the  instru- 
ment was  invented  by  the  Syrians.  Some  have  seen  in  kdros  (iii.  4, 
"  herald  ")  the  Greek  Krjpv^,  and  in  hamtiik,  "  chain,"  the  Greek  fiapiaKrjs : 
but  these  cannot  be  pressed. 

^  It  is  true  that  there  was  some  small  intercourse  between  even 
the  Assyrians  and  lonians  (Ja-am-na-a)  -as  far  back  as  the  days  of 
Sargon  (b.c.  722-705) ;  but  not  enough  to  account  for  such  words. 

*  Sayce,  Contemp.  Rev.,  December  1878, 


24  THE  BOOK   OF  DANIEL 


used  by  Polybius  (xxvi.  lO,  §  5,  xxxi.  4,  §  8),  and  in 
express  connexion  with  the  festivities  of  the  very  king 
with  whom  the  apocalpytic  section  of  Daniel  is  mainly 
occupied — Antiochus  Epiphanes.^  The  attempts  of 
Professor  Fuller  and  others  to  derive  these  words 
from  Semitic  roots  are  a  desperate  resource,  and  cannot 
win  the  assent  of  a  single  trained  philologist.  ''  These 
words,"  says  Professor  Driver,  **  could  not  have  been 
used  in  the  Book  of  Daniel,  unless  it  had  been  written 
after  the  dissemination  of  Greek  influence  in  Asia 
through  the  conquest  of  Alexander  the  Great. "^ 

2.  The  Unity  of  the  Book 

The  Unity  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  is  now  generally 
admitted.  No  one  thought  of  questioning  it  in  days 
before  the  dawn  of  criticism,  but  in  1772  Eichhorn  and 
Corrodi  doubted  the  genuineness  of  the  Book.  J.  D. 
Michaelis  endeavoured  to  prove  that  it  was  ''a  col- 
lection of  fugitive  pieces,"  consisting  of  six  historic 
pictures,  followed  by  four  prophetic  visions.^  Bertholdt, 
followed  the  erroneous  tendency  of  criticism  which 
found  a  foremost  exponent  in  Ewald,  and  imagined  the 
possibility    of  detecting   the    work   of  many  different 

'  Some  argue  that  in  this  passage  av/mcpcovia  means  "a  concert"  (com p. 
Luke  XV.  25)  ;  but  Polybius  mentions  it  with  "  a  horn "  (KepdrLov). 
Behrmann  (p.  ix)  connects  it  with  a'Kpwv,  and  makes  it  mean  "a 
pipe." 

-  Pusey  says  all  he  can  on  the  other  side  (pp.  23-28),  and  has  not 
changed  the  opinion  of  scholars  (pp.  27-33).  fabre  d'Envieu  (i.  lOi) 
also  desperately  denies  the  existence  of  any  Greek  words.  On  the 
other  side  see  Derenbourg,  Les  Mots  grecs  dans  le  Livre  bibliqiie  de 
Daniel  (Melanges  Graux,  1884). 

^  Orient,  u.  Exeg.  Bibliothek,  1772,  p.  141.  This  view  was  revived 
by  Lagarde  in  the  Gbttingen  Gel.  Anzeigen,  1 891. 


GENERAL  SURVEY  25 


hands.  He  divided  the  Book  into  fragments  by  nine 
different  authors.^ 

Zockler,  in  Lange's  Bibelwerky  persuaded  himself 
that  the  old  ''orthodox"  views  of  Hengstenberg  and 
Auberlen  were  right ;  but  he  could  only  do  this  by 
sacrificing  the  authenticity  of  parts  of  the  Book,  and 
assuming  more  than  one  redaction.  Thus  he  supposes 
that  xi.  5-39  are  an  interpolation  by  a  writer  in  the 
days  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  Similarly,  Lenormant 
admits  interpolations  in  the  first  half  of  the  Book. 
But  to  concede  this  is  practically  to  give  up  the  Book 
of  Daniel  as  it  now  stands. 

The  ttJiity  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  is  still  admitted  or 
assumed  by  most  critics.^  It  has  only  been  recently 
questioned  in  two  directions. 

Meinhold  thinks  that  the  Aramaic  and  historic  sec- 

^  Daniel  neu  Ubersetz.  u.  Erkldrt.,  1808;  KohX^r,  Lehrbuch/u.  577. 
The  first  who  suspected  the  unity  of  the  Book  because  of  the  two 
languages  was  Spinoza  (Tract-lnstoricopol,  x.  130  ff.).  Newton  {Obser- 
vations upon  the  Prophecies  of  Daniel  and  the  Apocalypse,  i.  10)  and 
Beausobre  (Remarques  sur  le  Nouv.  Test.,  i.  70)  shared  the  doubt 
because  of  the  use  of  the  first  person  in  the  prophetic  (Dan.  vii,-xii.) 
and  the  third  in  the  historic  section  (Dan.  i.-vi.).  Michaelis,  Bertholdt, 
and  Reuss  considered  that  its  origin  was  fragmentary ;  and  Lagarde 
(who  dated  the  seventh  chapter  a.d.  69)  calls  it  "a  bundle  of  fly- 
leaves." Meinhold  and  Strack,  like  Eichhorn,  regard  the  historic 
section  as  older  than  the  prophetic  ;  and  Cornill  thinks  that  the  Book 
was  put  together  in  great  haste.  Similarly,  Graf  {Der  Prophet  J eremia) 
regards  the  Aramaic  verse,  Jer.  x.  1 1,  as  a  marginal  gloss.  Lagarde 
argues,  from  the  silence  of  Josephus  about  many  points,  that  he  could 
not  have  had  the  present  Book  of  Daniel  before  him  {e.g.,  Dan.  vii, 
or  ix.-xii.)  ;  but  the  argument  is  unsafe.  Josephus  seems  to  have 
understood  the  Fourth  Empire  to  be  the  Roman,  and  did  not  venture 
to  write  of  its  destruction.  For  this  reason  he  does  not  explain 
"the  stone"  of  Dan.  ii.  45. 

2  By  De  Wette,  Schrader,  Hitzig,  Ewald,  Gesenius,  Bleek,  Delitzsch, 
Von  Lengerke,  Stahelin,  Kamphausen,  Wellhausen,  etc.  Reuss, 
however,  says  {Heil.  Schrift.,  p.  575),  "  Man  konnte  auf  die  Vorstellung 


26  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

tions  are  older  than  the  rest  of  the  Book,  and  were 
written  about  B.C.  300  to  convert  the  Gentiles  to 
monotheism.^  He  argues  that  the  apocalpytic  section 
was  written  later,  and  was  subsequently  incorporated 
with  the  Book.  A  somewhat  similar  view  is  held  by 
Zockler,^  and  some  have  thought  that  Daniel  could 
never  have  written  of  himself  in  such  highly  favour- 
able terms  as,  e.g.,  in  Dan.  vi.  4.^  The  first  chapter, 
which  is  essential  as  an  introduction  to  the  Book,  and 
the  seventh,  which  is  apocalpytic,  and  is  yet  in  Aramaic, 
create  objections  to  the  acceptance  of  this  theory. 
Further,  it  is  impossible  not  to  observe  a  certain  unity 
of  style  and  parallelism  of  treatment  between  the  two 
parts.  Thus,  if  the  prophetic  section  is  mainly  devoted 
to  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  the  historic  section  seems  to 
have  an  allusive  bearing  on  his  impious  madness.  In 
ii.  10,  II,  and  vi.  8,  we  have  descriptions  of  daring 
Pagan  edicts,  which  might  be  intended  to  furnish  a 
contrast  with  the  attempts  of  Antiochus  to  suppress  the 
worship  of  God.  The  feast  of  Belshazzar  may  well  be  a 
**  reference  to  the  Syrian  despot's  revelries  at  Daphne." 
Again,  in  ii.  43 — where  the  mixture  of  iron  and  clay  is 
explained  by  "they  shall  mingle  themselves  with  the 

kommen  das  Buch  habe  mehr  als  einen  Verfasser";  and  Konig  thinks 
that  the  original  form  of  the  book  may  have  ended  with  chap.  vii. 
{Einlcit,  §  384). 

'  Beitrage,  1 888.  See  too  Kranichfeld,  Das  Buch  Daniel,  p.  4.  The 
view  is  refuted  by  Budde,  Theol.  Lit.  Zeitung,  1888,  No.  26,  The 
conjecture  has  often  occurred  to  critics.  Thus  Sir  Isaac  Newton, 
believing  that  Daniel  wrote  the  last  six  chapters,  thought  that  the 
six  first  "  are  a  collection  of  historical  papers  written  by  others " 
(Obse)'vaticns,  i.  10). 

-  Einleit.,  p.  6. 

^  Other  critics  who  incline  to  one  or  other  modification  of  this  view 
of  the  two  Daniels  are  Tholuck,  d.  A.  T.  in  N.  T.,  1872;  C.  v.  Orelli, 
Alitest.  Weissag.,  1882 ;  and  Strack, 


GENERAL  SURVEY  27 

seed  of  men  " — it  seems  far  from  improbable  that  there 
is  a  reference  to  the  unhappy  intermarriages  of  Ptolemies 
and  Seleiicidae.  Berenice,  daughter  of  Ptolemy  II. 
(Philadelphus),  married  Antiochus  II.  (Theos),  and  this 
is  alluded  to  in  the  vision  of  xi.  6.  Cleopatra,  daughter 
of  Antiochus  III.  (the  Great),  married  Ptolemy  V. 
(Epiphanes),  which  is  alluded  to  in  xi.  ly}  The  style 
seems  to  be  stamped  throughout  with  the  characteristics 
of  an  individual  mind,  and  the  most  cursory  glance 
suffices  to  show  that  the  historic  and  prophetic  parts 
are  united  by  many  points  of  connexion  and  resem- 
blance. Meinhold  is  quite  unsuccessful  in  the  attempt 
to  prove  a  sharp  contrast  of  views  between  the  sections. 
The  interchange  of  persons — the  third  person  being 
mainly  used  in  the  first  seven  chapters,  and  the  first 
person  in  the  last  five — may  be  partly  due  to  the  final 
editor ;  but  in  any  case  it  may  easily  be  paralleled,  and 
is  found  in  other  writers,  as  in  Isaiah  (vii.  3,  xx.  2) 
and  the  Bpok  of  Enoch  (xii.). 

But  it  may  be  said  in  general  that  the  authenticit}^ 
of  the  Book  is  now  rarely  defended  by  any  competent 
critic,  except  at  the  cost  of  abandoning  certain  sections 
of  it  as  interpolated  additions  ;  and  as  Mr.  Bevan  some- 
what caustically  remarks,  ''the  defenders  of  Daniel 
have,  during  the  last  few  years,  been  employed  chiefly 
in  cutting  Daniel  to  pieces."  ^ 

3.  The  General  Tone  of  the  Book 

The  general  tone  of  the  Book  marks  a  new  era  in 
the  education  and  progress  of  the  Jews.     The  lessons 

'  Hengstenberg  also  points  to  verbal  resemblances  between  ii.  44 
and  vii.  14;  iv,  5  and  vii.  i  ;  ii.  31  and  vii.  2;  ii.  38  and  vii.  17,  etc. 
(Genuineness  of  Daniel,  E.  Tr.,  pp.  186  ff.). 

^  A  Short  Commsniary,  p.  8. 


THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


of  the    Exile    uplifted    them    from    a   too  narrow  and 
absorbing  particularism    to    a    wider   interest    in    the 
destinies   of  humanity.     They  were    led  to  recognise 
that  God  ''  has  made  of  one  every  nation  of  men  for 
to  dwell  on  all  the  face  of  the  earth,  having  determined 
their  appointed  seasons,  and  the  bounds  of  their  habita- 
tion ;  that  they  should  seek  God,  if  haply  they  might 
feel  after   Him,  and  find  Him,  though   He  is  not  far 
from  each  one  of  us."^     The  standpoint  of  the  Book 
of  Daniel  is  larger  and  more  cosmopolitan  in  this  re- 
spect than  that  of  earlier  prophecy.     Israel  had  begun 
to  mingle  more  closely  with  other  nations,  and  to  be  a 
sharer  in  their  destinies.     Politically  the  Hebrew  race 
no  longer  formed  a  small  though  independent  kingdom, 
but  was  reduced  to  the  position  of  an  entirely  insigni- 
ficant sub-province  in  a  mighty  empire.     The  Messiah 
is  no  longer  the  Son  of  David,  but  the  Son  of  Man  ; 
no  longer  only  the   King  of  Israel,  but  of  the  world. 
Mankind — not  only  the  seed  of  Jacob — fills  the  field  of 
prophetic  vision.     Amid  widening  horizons  of  thought 
the  Jews  turned  their  eyes  upon  a  great  past,  rich  in 
events,  and  crowded  with  the  figures  of  heroes,  saints, 
and  sages.     At  the  same  time  the  world  seemed  to  be 
growing  old,  and  its  ever-deepening  wickedness  seemed 
to  call  for  some  final  judgment.     We   begin  to  trace 
in   the  Hebrew  writings  the  colossal   conceptions,   the 
monstrous   imagery,   the  daring  conjectures,    the   more 
complex  religious  ideas,  of  an  exotic  fancy.^ 

"  The  giant  forms  of  Empires  on  their  way 
To  ruin,  dim  and  vast," 

begin   to  fling  their  weird  and  sombre   shadows  over 
the  page  of  sacred  history  and  prophetic  anticipation. 


Acts  xvii.  26,  27.  -  See  Hitzig,  p.  xii ;  Auberlen,  p.  4 


GENERAL  SURVEY  29 


4.  The  Style  of  the  Book 

The  style  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  is  new,  and  has 
very  marked  characteristics,  indicating  its  late  position 
in  the  Canon.  It  is  rhetorical  rather  than  poetic. 
"  Totum  Danielis  librum,"  says  Lowth,  "  e  poetarum 
censu  excludo."  ^  How  widel}^  does  the  style  differ  from 
the  rapt  passion  and  glowing  picturesqueness  of  Isaiah, 
from  the  elegiac  tenderness  of  Jeremiah,  from  the 
lyrical  sweetness  of  many  of  the  Psalms  !  How  very 
little  does  it  correspond  to  the  three  great  requirements 
of  poetry,  that  it  should  be,  as  Milton  so  finely  said, 
'*  simple,  sensuous,  passionate " !  A  certain  artifi- 
ciality of  diction,  a  sounding  oratorical  stateliness, 
enhanced  by  dignified  periphrases  and  leisurely  repeti- 
tions, must  strike  the  most  casual  reader ;  and  this  is 
sometimes  carried  so  far  as  to  make  the  movement  of 
the  narrative  heavy  and  pompous.^  This  peculiarity 
is  not  found  to  the  same  extent  in  any  other  book  of 
the  Old  Testament  Canon,  but  it  recurs  in  the  Jewish 
writings  of  a  later  age.  From  the  apocryphal  books, 
for  instance,  the  poetical  element  is  with  trifling  ex- 
ceptions, such  as  the  Song  of  the  Three  Children, 
entirely  absent,  while  the  taste  for  rhetorical  ornamenta- 
tion, set  speeches,  and  dignified  elaborateness  is  found 
in  many  of  them. 

This  evanescence  of  the  poetic  and  impassioned  ele- 
ment separates  Daniel  from  the  Prophets,  and  marks 

^  Reuss  says  too  severely,  "  Die  Schilderungen  aller  dieser 
Vorgange  machen  keinen  gewinnenden  Eindruck.  .  .  .  Der  Stil  ist 
unbeholfen,  die  Figuren  grotesk,  die  Farben  grell,"  He  admits, 
however,  the  suitableness  of  the  Book  for  the  Maccabean  epoch,  and 
the  deep  impression  it  made  {Heil.  Schrift.  A.  T.,  p.  571). 

^  See  iii.  2,  3,  5,  7  ;  viii.  i,  10,  19 ;  xi.  15,  22,  31,  etc. 


30  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


the  place  of  the  Book  among  the  Hagiographa,  where 
it  was  placed  by  the  Jews  themselves.  In  all  the  great 
Hebrew  seers  we  find  something  of  the  ecstatic  trans- 
port, the  fire  shut  up  within  the  bones  and  breaking 
forth  from  the  volcanic  heart,  the  burning  lips  touched 
by  the  hands  of  seraphim  with  a  living  coal  from  off  the 
altar.  The  word  for  prophet  {nahiy  Vates)  implies  an 
inspired  singer  rather  than  a  soothsayer  or  seer  {roeh^ 
chozeh).  It  is  applied  to  Deborah  and  Miriam  ^  because 
they  poured  forth  from  exultant  hearts  the  paean  of 
victory.  Hence  arose  the  close  connexion  between 
music  and  poetry.^  Elisha  required  the  presence  of  a 
minstrel  to  soothe  the  agitation  of  a  heart  thrown  into 
tumult  by  the  near  presence  of  a  revealing  Power.^ 
Just  as  the  Greek  word  /xaz^rt?,  from  fialvoixaiy  implies 
a  sort  of  madness,  and  recalls  the  foaming  lip  and 
streaming  hair  of  the  spirit-dilated  messenger,  so  the 
Hebrew  verb  naba  meant,  not  only  to  proclaim  God's 
oracles,  but  to  be  inspired  by  His  possession  as  with 
a  Divine  frenzy.*  **  Madman  "  seemed  a  natural  term 
to  apply  to  the  messenger  of  Elisha.^  It  is  easy  there- 
fore to  see  why  the  Book  of  Daniel  was  not  placed 
among  the  prophetic  rolls.  This  vera  passio,  this 
ecstatic  elevation  of  thought  and  feeling,  are  wholly 
wanting  in  this  earliest  attempt  at  a  philosophy  of 
history.  We  trace  in  it  none  of  that  **  blasting  with 
excess  of  light,"  none  of  that  shuddering  sense  of  being 
uplifted  out  of  self,  which  marks  the  higher  and  earlier 

*  Exod.  XV.  20 ;  Judg.  iv.  4. 

2  I  Sam.  X.  5 ;  I  Chron.  xxv.  i,  2,  3. 
^  2  Kings  iii.  15. 

*  Jer.  xxix.  26;  I  Sam.  xviii.  lO,  xix.  21-24. 

1  ^  2  Kings  ix.  Ii.  See  Expositors  Bible,  Second  Book  of  Kings, 
p.  113. 


GENERAL  SURVEY  31 


forms  of  prophetic  inspiration.  Daniel  is  addressed 
through  the  less  exalted  medium  of  visions,  and  in  his 
visions  there  is  less  of  "the  faculty  Divine."  The 
instinct — if  instinct  it  were  and  not  knowledge  of  the 
real  origin  of  the  Book — which  led  the  "  Men  of  the 
Great  Synagogue  "  to  place  this  Book  among  the  Ketub- 
htm,  not  among  the  Prophets,  was  wise  and  sure.^ 

5.  The  Standpoint  of  the  Author 

"  In  Daniel  Oflfnet  sich  eine  ganz  neue  Welt."— Eichhorn,  Einleit., 
iv.  472. 

The  author  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  seems  naturally  to 
place  himself  on  a  level  lower  than  that  of  the  prophets 
who  had  gone  before  him.  He  does  not  count  himself 
among  the  prophets  ;  on  the  contrary,  he  puts  them  far 
higher  than  himself,  and  refers  to  them  as  though  they 
belonged  to  the  dim  and  distant  past  (ix.  2,  6).  In  his 
prayer  of  penitence  he  confesses,  "  Neither  have  we 
hearkened  unto  thy  servants  the  prophets,  which  spake 
in  Thy  Name  to  our  kings,  our  princes,  and  our 
fathers  " ;  "  Neither  have  we  obeyed  the  voice  of  the 
Lord  our  God,  to  walk  in  His  laws,  which  He  set  before 
us  by  His  servants  the  prophets."  Not  once  does  he 
use  the  mighty  formula  ''  Thus  saith  Jehovah  " — not 
once  does  he  assume,  in  the  prophecies,  a  tone  of  high 
personal  authority.  He  shares  the  view  of  the  Macca- 
bean  age  that  prophecy  is  dead.^ 

^  On  this  subject  see  Ewald,  Proph.  d.  A.  Bundes,  i.  6;  Novalis, 
Schriften,  ii.  472;  Herder,  Geist  der  Ebr.  Poesie,  ii.  61;  Knobel, 
Prophettsmus,  i.  103.  Even  the  Latin  poets  were  called  propheice, 
'*  bards "  (Varro,  De  Ling.  Lat.,  vi.  3).  Epimenides  is  called  "  a 
prophet  "  in  Tit.  i.  12.  See  Plato,  Tim.,  72,  a.  ;  Phadr.,  262,  d.  ;  Pind., 
Fr.f  118  ;  and  comp.  Eph.  iii.  5,  iv.  ii. 

^  Dan.  ix.  6,  10.  So  conscious  was  the  Maccabean  age  of  the 
absence  of  prophets,  that,  just  as»  after  the  Captivity  a  question  is 


f 


32  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

In  Dan.  ix.  2  we  find  yet  anotiier  decisive  indication 
of  the  late  age  of  this  writing.  He  tells  us  that  he 
"understood  by  books"  (more  correctly,  as  in  the  A.V., 
**  by  the  books  "  ^)  the  number  of  the  years  whereof  the 
word  of  the  Lord  came  to  Jeremiah  the  prophet."  The 
writer  here  represents  himself  as  a  humble  student  of 
previous  prophets,  and  this  necessarily  marks  a  position 
of  less  freshness  and  independence.  *'To  the  old 
prophets,"  says  Bishop  Westcott,  *'  Daniel  stands  in 
some  sense  as  a  commentator."  No  doubt  the  posses- 
sion of  those  living  oracles  was  an  immense  blessing, 
a  rich  inheritance  ;  but  it  involved  a  danger.  Truths 
established  by  writings  and  traditions,  safe-guarded  by 
schools  and  institutions,  are  too  apt  to  come  to  men 
only  as  a  power  from  without,  and  less  as  '^  a  hidden 
and  inly  burning  flame."  ^ 

By  ''  the  books "  can  hardly  be  meant  anything  but 
some  approach  to  a  definite  Canon.  If  so,  the  Book  of 
Daniel  in  its  present  form  can  only  have  been  written 
subsequently  to  the  days  of  Ezra.  ''The  account 
which  assigns  a  collection  of  books  to  Nehemiah 
(2  Mace.  ii.  13),"  says  Bishop  Westcott,  "is  in  itself 
a  confirmation  of  the  general  truth  of  the  gradual 
formation  of  the  Canon  during  the  Persian  period. 
The  various  classes  of  books  were  completed  in  succes- 


postponed  "itill  there  should  arise  a  priest  with  the  Urim  and 
Thummin,"  so  Judas  postponed  the  decision  about  the  stones  of  the 
desecrated  altar  "until  there  should  cornea  prophet  to  show  what 
should  be  done  with  them  "  (l  Mace.  iv.  45,  46,  ix.  27,  xiv.  41).  Comp. 
Song  of  the  Three  Children,  15  ;  Psalm  Ixxiv.  9  ;  Sota,  f.  48,  2.  See 
infra,  Introd.,  chap.  viii. 

'  Dan.  ix.  2,  hassepharim,  to.  ^L^Xia. 

'^  Ewald,  Proph.  d.  A.  B.,  p.  10.  Judas  Maccabaeus  is  also  said  to 
have  "  restored  "  {eTriavurjyaye)  the  lost  (5ia7re7rrw/cdra)  sacred  writings 
(2  Mace.  ii.  14). 


GENERAL  SURVEY  33 

sion  ;  and  this  view  harmonises  with  what  must  have 
been  the  natural  development  of  the  Jewish  faith  after 
the  Return.  The  persecution  of  Antiochus  (b.c.  168) 
was  for  the  Old  Testament  what  the  persecution  of 
Diocletian  was  for  the  New — the  final  crisis  which 
stamped  the  sacred  writings  with  their  peculiar  character. 
The  king  sought  out  the  Books  of  the  Law  (i  Mace.  i. 
56)  and  burnt  them ;  and  the  possession  of  a  '  Book 
of  the  Covenant '  was  a  capital  crime.  According  to 
the  common  tradition,  the  proscription  of  the  Law  led 
to  the  public  use  of  the  writings  of  the  prophets."  ^ 

The  whole  method  of  Daniel  differs  even  from  that  of 
the  later  and  inferior  prophets  of  the  Exile — Haggai, 
Malachi,  and  the  second  Zechariah.  The  Book  is  rather 
an  apocalypse  than  a  prophecy  :  **  the  eye  and  not  the 
ear  is  the  organ  to  which  the  chief  appeal  is  made." 
Though  symbolism  in  the  form  of  visions  is  not  un- 
known to  Ezekiel  and  Zechariah,  yet  those  prophets  are 
far  from  being  apocalyptic  in  character.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  grotesque  and  gigantic  emblems  of  Daniel 
— these  animal  combinations,  these  interventions  of 
dazzling  angels  who  float  in  the  air  or  over  the  water, 
these  descriptions  of  historical  events  under  the  veil 
of  material  types  seen  in  dreams — are  a  frequent  pheno- 
menon in  such  late  apocryphal  writings  as  the  Second 
Book  of  Esdras,  the  Book  of  Enoch,  and  the  prae- 
Christian  Sibylline  oracles,  in  which  talking  lions  and 
eagles,  etc.,  are  frequent.  Indeed,  this  style  of  symbolism 
originated  among  the  Jews  from  their  contact  with  the 
graven  mysteries  and  colossal  images  of  Babylonian 
worship.     The  Babylonian    Exile  formed  an  epoch    in 

*  Smith's   Diet,   of  the  Bible,  i.    501.     The  daily   lesson    from  the 
Prophets  was  called  the  Haphtarah  (Hamburger,  Real-Encycl.,  ii.  334). 

3 


34  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

the  intellectual  development  of  Israel  fully  as  important 
as  the  sojourn  in  Egypt.  It  was  a  stage  in  their  moral 
and  religious  education.  It  was  the  psychological  pre- 
paration requisite  for  the  moulding  of  the  last  phase 
of  revelation — that  apocalyptic  form  which  succeeds  to 
theophany  and  prophecy,  and  embodies  the  final  results 
of  national  religious  inspiration.  That  the  apocalyptic 
method  of  dealing  with  history  in  a  religious  and  an 
imaginative  manner  naturally  arises  towards  the  close 
of  any  great  cycle  of  special  revelation  is  illustrated 
by  the  flood  of  apocalypses  which  overflowed  the  early 
literature  of  the  Christian  Church.  But  the  Jews  clearly 
saw  that,  as  a  rule,  an  apocalypse  is  inherently  inferior 
to  a  prophecy,  even  when  it  is  made  the  vehicle  of 
genuine  prediction.  In  estimating  the  grades  of  inspira- 
tion the  Jews  placed  highest  the  inward  illumination  of 
the  Spirit,  the  Reason,  and  the  Understanding;  next 
to  this  they  placed  dreams  and  visions ;  and  lowest 
of  all  they  placed  the  accidental  auguries  derived  from 
the  Bath  Ool.  An  apocalypse  may  be  of  priceless 
value,  like  the  Revelation  of  St.  John  ;  it  may,  like  the 
Book  of  Daniel,  abound  in  the  noblest  and  most  thrilling 
lessons ;  but  in  intrinsic  dignity  and  worth  it  is  always 
placed  by  the  instinct  and  conscience  of  mankind  on  a 
lower  grade  than  such  outpourings  of  Divine  teachings 
as  breathe  and  burn  through  the  pages  of  a  David  and 
an  Isaiah. 

6.  The  Moral  Element. 

Lastly,  among  these  salient  phenomena  of  the  Book 
of  Daniel  we  are  compelled  to  notice  the  absence  of 
the  predominantly  moral  element  from  its  prophetic 
portion.  The  author  does  not  write  in  the  tone  of  a 
preacher   of  repentance,  or   of  one  whose   immediate 


GENERAL  SURVEY  35 

object  it  is  to  ameliorate  the  moral  and  spiritual  con- 
dition of  his  people.  His  aims  were  different.^  The 
older  prophets  were  the  ministers  of  dispensations 
between  the  Law  and  the  Gospel.  They  were,  in  the 
beautiful  language  of  Herder, — 

"  Die  Saitenspiel  in  Gottes  machtigen  Handen." 

Doctrine,  worship,  and  consolation  were  their  proper 
sphere.  They  were  ^^  orator es  Legis^  advocaii  Patrice^ 
In  them  prediction  is  wholly  subordinate  to  moral  warn- 
ing and  instruction.  They  denounce,  they  inspire  :  they 
smite  to  the  dust  with  terrible  invective ;  they  uplift 
once  more  into  glov/ing  hope.  The  announcement  of 
events  yet  future  is  the  smallest  part  of  the  prophet's 
office,  and  rather  its  sign  than  its  substance.  The 
highest  mission  of  an  Amos  or  an  Isaiah  is  not  to  be  a 
prognosticator,  but  to  be  a  religious  teacher.  He  makes 
his  appeals  to  the  conscience,  not  to  the  imagination — 
to  the  spirit,  not  to  the  sense.  He  deals  with  eternal 
principles,  and  is  almost  wholly  indifferent  to  chrono- 
logical verifications.  To  awaken  the  death-like  slumber 
of  sin,  to  fan  the  dying  embers  of  faithfulness,  to  smite 
down  the  selfish  oppressions  of  wealth  and  power,  to 
startle  the  sensual  apathy  of  greed,  were  the  ordinary 
and  the  noblest  aims  of  the  greater  and  the  minor 
prophets.  It  was  their  task  far  rather  to  forth-tell  than 
to  fore-tell)  and  if  they  announce,  in  general  outline 
and  uncertain  perspective,  things  which  shall  be  here- 
after, it  is  only  in  subordination  to  high  ethical  pur- 
poses, or  profound  spiritual  lessons.  So  it  is  also  in 
the  Revelation  of  St.  John.     But  in  the  ^'  prophetic  " 

^  On  this  subject  see  Kuenen,  The  Prophets^  iii.  95  ff. ;  Davison,  On 
Prophecy,  pp.  34-67  ;  Herder,  Hebv.  Poesie,  ii.  64  ;  De  Wette,  Christl. 
Sittenlehre,  ii.  I. 


36  THE  BOOK   OF  DANIEL 

part  of  Daniel  it  is  difficult  for  the  keenest  imagination 
to  discern  any  deep  moral,  or  any  special  doctrinal 
significance,  in  all  the  details  of  the  obscure  wars 
and  petty  diplomacy  of  the  kings  of  the  North  and 
South. 

In  point  of  fact  the  Book  of  Daniel,  even  as  an 
apocalypse,  suffers  severely  by  comparison  with  that 
latest  canonical  Apocalypse  of  the  Beloved  Disciple 
which  it  largely  influenced.  It  is  strange  that  Luther, 
who  spoke  so  slightingly  of  the  Revelation  of  St.  John, 
should  have  placed  the  Book  of  Daniel  so  high  in  his 
estimation.  It  is  indeed  a  noble  book,  full  of  glorious 
lessons.  Yet  surely  it  has  but  little  of  the  sublime 
and  mysterious  beauty,  little  of  the  heart-shaking  pathos, 
little  of  the  tender  sweetness  of  consolatory  power, 
which  fill  the  closing  book  of  the  New  Testament.  Its 
imagery  is  far  less  exalted,  its  hope  of  immortality  far 
less  distinct  and  unquenchable.  Yet  the  Book  of 
Daniel,  while  it  is  one  of  the  earliest,  still  remains  one 
of  the  greatest  specimens  of  this  form  of  sacred  litera- 
ture. It  inaugurated  the  new  epoch  of  '^  apocalyptic  " 
which  in  later  days  was  usually  pseudepigraphic,  and 
sheltered  itself  under  the  names  of  Enoch,  Noah,  Moses, 
Ezra,  and  even  the  heathen  Sibyls.  These  apocalypses 
are  of  very  unequal  value.  ''  Some,"  as  Kuenen  says, 
"stand  comparatively  high;  others  are  far  below 
mediocrity."  But  the  genus  to  which  they  belong  has 
its  own  peculiar  defect.  They  are  works  of  art :  they 
are  not  spontaneous ;  they  smell  of  the  lamp.  A  fruit- 
less and  an  unpractical  peering  into  the  future  was 
encouraged  by  these  writings,  and  became  predominant 
in  some  Jewish  circles.  But  the  Book  of  Daniel  is 
incomparably  superior  in  every  possible  respect  to 
Baruch,  or  the  Book  of  Enoch,  or  the  Second  Book  of 


GENERAL  SURVEY  37 

Esdras ;  and  if  we  place  it  for  a  moment  by  the  side 
of  such  books  as  those  contained  in  the  Codex  Pseud- 
epigraphus  of  Fabricius,  its  high  worth  and  Canonical 
authority  are  vindicated  with  extraordinary  force.  How 
lofty  and  enduring  are  the  lessons  to  be  learnt  alike 
from  its  historic  and  predictive  sections  we  shall  have 
abundant  opportunities  of  seeing  in  the  following  pages. 
So  far  from  undervaluing  its  teaching,  I  have  always 
been  strongly  drawn  to  this  Book  of  Scripture.  It  has 
never  made  the  least  difference  in  my  reverent  accept- 
ance of  it  that  I  have,  for  many  years,  been  convinced 
that  it  cannot  be  regarded  as  literal  history  or  ancient 
prediction.  Reading  it  as  one  of  the  noblest  specimens 
of  the  Jewish  Haggada  or  moral  Ethopoeia,  I  find  it  full 
of  instruction  in  righteousness,  and  rich  in  examples  of 
life.  That  Daniel  was  a  real  person,  that  he  lived  in 
the  days  of  the  Exile,  and  that  his  life  was  distinguished 
by  the  splendour  of  its  faithfulness  I  hold  to  be  entirely 
possible.  When  we  regard  the  stories  here  related  of 
him  as  moral  legends,  possibly  based  on  a  groundwork 
of  real  tradition,  we  read  the  Book  with  a  full  sense  of 
its  value,  and  feel  the  power  of  the  lessons  which  it 
was  designed  to  teach,  without  being  perplexed  by  its 
apparent  improbabilities,  or  worried  by  its  immense 
historic  and  other  difficulties. 

The  Book  is  in  all  respects  unique,  a  writing  sui 
generis ;  for  the  many  imitations  to  which  it  led  are  but 
imitations.  But,  as  the  Jewish  writer  Dr.  Joel  truly 
says,  the  unveiling  of  the  secret  as  to  the  real  lateness 
of  its  date  and  origin,  so  far  from  causing  any  loss  in 
its  beauty  and  interest,  enhance  both  in  a  remarkable 
degree.  It  is  thus  seen  to  be  the  work  of  a  brave  and 
gifted  anonymous  author  about  B.C.  167,  who  brought 
his  piety  and  his  patriotism   to  bear  on  the  troubled 


38  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

fortunes  of  his  people  at  an  epoch  in  which  such  piety 
and  patriotism  were  of  priceless  value.  We  have  in 
its  later  sections  no  voice  of  enigmatic  prediction,  fore- 
telling the  minutest  complications  of  a  distant  secular 
future,  but  mainly  the  review  of  contemporary  events 
by  a  wise  and  an  earnest  writer  whose  faith  and  hope 
remained  unquenchable  in  the  deepest  night  of  persecu- 
tion and  apostasy.^  Many  passages  of  the  Book  are 
dark,  and  will  remain  dark,  owing  partly  perhaps  to 
corruptions  and  uncertainties  of  the  text,  and  partly  to 
imitation  of  a  style  which  had  become  archaic,  as  well 
as  to  the  peculiarities  of  the  apocalyptic  form.  But  the 
general  idea  of  the  Book  has  now  been  thoroughly 
elucidated,  and  the  interpretation  of  it  in  the  following 
pages  is  accepted  by  the  great  majority  of  earnest  and 
faithful  students  of  the  Scriptures. 

^  Joel,  Notizen,  p.  7. 


CHAPTER    III 

PECULIARITIES    OF    THE    HISTORIC   SECTION 

NO  one  can  have  studied  the  Book  of  Daniel  with- 
out seeing  that,  alike  in  the  character  of  its 
miracles  and  the  minuteness  of  its  supposed  predictions, 
it  makes  a  more  stupendous  and  a  less  substantiated 
claim  upon  our  credence  than  any  other  book  of  the 
Bible,  and  a  claim  wholly  different  in  character.  It 
has  over  and  over  again  been  asserted  by  the  uncharit- 
ableness  of  a  merely  traditional  orthodoxy  that  inability 
to  accept  the  historic  verity  and  genuineness  of  the 
Book  arises  from  secret  faithlessness,  and  antagonism 
to  the  admission  of  the  supernatural.  No  competent 
scholar  will  think  it  needful  to  refute  such  calumnies. 
It  suffices  us  to  know  before  God  that  we  are  actuated 
simply  by  the  love  of  truth,  by  the  abhorrence  of  any- 
thing which  in  us  would  be  a  pusillanimous  spirit  of 
falsity.  We  have  too  deep  a  belief  in  the  God  of  the 
Amen,  the  God  of  eternal  and  essential  verity,  to  offer 
to  Him  *'  the  unclean  sacrifice  of  a  lie."  An  error  is 
not  sublimated  into  a  truth  even  when  that  lie  has 
acquired  a  quasi-consecration,  from  its  supposed  desir- 
ability for  purposes  of  orthodox  controversy,  or  from 
its  innocent  acceptance  by  generations  of  Jewish  and 
Christian  Churchmen  through  long  ages  of  uncritical 
ignorance.  Scholars,  if  they  be  Christians  at  all,  can 
have   rto   possible   a-priori  objection   to   belief  in   the 

39 


40  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

supernatural.  If  they  believe,  for  instance,  in  the 
Incarnation  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  they 
believe  in  the  most  mysterious  and  unsurpassable  of  all 
miracles,  and  beside  that  miracle  all  minor  questions  of 
God's  power  or  willingness  to  manifest  His  immediate 
intervention  in  the  affairs  of  men  sink  at  once  into 
absolute  insignificance. 

But  our  belief  in  the  Incarnation,  and  in  the  miracles 
of  Christ,  rests  on  evidence  which,  after  repeated 
examination,  is  to  us  overwhelming.  Apart  from  all 
questions  of  personal  verification,  or  the  Inward  Witness 
of  the  Spirit,  we  can  show  that  this  evidence  is  sup- 
ported, not  only  by  the  existing  records,  but  by  myriads 
of  external  and  independent  testimonies.  The  very 
same  Spirit  which  makes  men  believe  where  the  demon- 
stration is  decisive,  compels  them  to  refuse  belief  to  the 
literal  verity  of  unique  miracles  and  unique  predic- 
tions which  come  before  them  without  any  convincing 
evidence.  The  narratives  and  visions  of  this  Book 
present  difficulties  on  every  page.  They  were  in  all 
probability  never  intended  for  anything  but  what  they 
are — Haggadoth,  which,  like  the  parables  of  Christ, 
convey  their  own  lessons  without  depending  on  the 
necessity  for  accordance  with  historic  fact. 

Had  it  been  any  part  of  the  Divine  will  that  we 
should  accept  these  stories  as  pure  history,  and  these 
visions  as  predictions  of  events  which  were  not  to  take 
place  till  centuries  afterwards,  we  should  have  been 
provided  with  some  aids  to  such  belief  On  the  con- 
trary, in  whatever  light  we  examine  the  Book  of  Daniel, 
the  evidence  in  its  favour  \s>  weak,  dubious,  hypothetical, 
and  a  priori;  while  the.  evidence  against  it  acquires 
increased  intensity  with  every  fresh  aspect  in  which  it 
is  examined.     The  Book  which  would  make  the  most 


PECULIARITIES  OF  THE  HISTORIC  SECTION      41 

extraordinary  demands  upon  our  credulity  if  it  were 
meant  for  history,  is  the  very  Book  of  which  the 
genuineness  and  authenticity  are  decisively  discredited 
by  every  fresh  discovery  and  by  each  new  examination. 
There  is  scarcely  one  learned  European  scholar  by 
whom  they  are  maintained,  except  with  such  conces- 
sions to  the  Higher  Criticism  as  practically  involve  the 
abandonment  of  all  that  is  essential  in  the  traditional 
theory. 

And  we  have  come  to  a  time  when  it  will  not  avail 
to  take  refuge  in  such  transferences  of  the  discussions 
in  alteram  materianiy  and  such  purely  vulgar  appeals 
ad  invidiam y  as  are  involved  in  saying,  '^  Then  the  Book 
must  be  a  forgery,"  and  ^*  an  imposture,"  and  "  a  gross 
lie."  To  assert  that  *'  to  give  up  the  Book  of  Daniel 
is  to  betray  the  cause  of  Christianity,"  ^  is  a  coarse  and 

*  Thus  Dr.  Pusey  says  :  "  The  Book  of  Daniel  is  especially  fitted 
to  be  a  battle-field  between  faith  and  unbelief.  It  admits  of  no  half- 
measures.  It  is  either  Divine  or  an  imposture.  To  write  any  book 
under  the  name  of  another,  and  to  give  it  out  to  be  his,  is,  in  any  case, 
a  forgery  dishonest  in  itself,  and  destructive  of  all  trustworthiness. 
But  the  case  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  if  it  were  not  his,  would  go  far 
beyond  even  this.  The  writer,  were  he  not  Daniel,  must  have  lied  on 
a  fi-ightful  scale.  In  a  word,  the  whole  Book  would  be  one  lie  in  the 
Name  of  God."  Few  would  venture  to  use  such  language  in  these 
days,  it  is  always  a  perilous  style  to  adopt,  but  now  it  has  become 
suicidal.  It  is  founded  on  an  immense  and  inexcusable  anachronism. 
It  avails  itself  of  an  utterly  false  misuse  of  the  words  "faith"  and 
"unbelief,"  by  which  "faith"  becomes  a  mere  synonym  for  "that 
which  I  esteem  orthodox,"  or  that  which  has  been  the  current  opinion 
in  ages  of  ignorance.  Much  truer  faith  may  be  shown  by  accepting 
arguments  founded  on  unbiassed  evidence  than  by  rejecting  them. 
And  what  can  be  more  foolish  than  to  base  the  great  truths  of  the 
Christian  rehgion  on  special  pleadings  which  have  now  come  to  wear 
the  aspect  of  ingenious  sophistries,  such  as  would  not  be  allowed  to 
have  the  smallest  validity  in  any  ordinary  question  of  literary  or 
historic  evidence?  Hengstenberg,  like  Pusey,  says  in  his  violent 
ecclesiastical  tone  of  autocratic  infallibility  that  the  interpretation  of 


42  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

dangerous  misuse  of  the  weapons  of  controversy.    Such 
talk  may  still  have  been  excusable  even  in  the  days  of 
Dr.  Pusey  (with  whom  it  was  habitual) ;  it  is  no  longer 
excusable  now.     Now  it  can  only  prove  the  uncharit- 
ableness    of  the   apologist,    and    the    impotence    of    a 
defeated   cause.     Yet   even    this  abandonment  of  the 
sphere  of  honourable  argument  is  only  one  degree  more 
painful  than  the  tortuous  subterfuges  and  wild  asser- 
tions to  which  such  apologists  as  Hengstenberg,  Keil, 
and    their    followers    were    long    compelled    to    have 
recourse.     Anything  can  be  proved  about  anything  if 
we   call    to    our   aid  indefinite  suppositions    of  errors 
of  transcription,    interpolations,    transpositions,    extra- 
ordinary silences,  still  more  extraordinary  methods  of 
presenting  events,  and  (in  general)  the  unconsciously 
disingenuous  resourcefulness  of  traditional   harmonics. 
To  maintain  that  the  Book  of  Daniel,  as  it  now  stands, 
was  written  by  Daniel  in  the  days  of  the  Exile  is  to 
cherish   a  belief  which  can    only,   at    the    utmost,    be 
extremely  uncertain,  and  which  must  be  maintained  in 
defiance  of  masses  of  opposing  evidence.     There  can 
be  little  intrinsic  value  in  a  determination  to  believe 
historical  and  literary  assumptions  which  can  no  longer 
be  maintained  except  by  preferring  the  flimsiest  hypo- 
theses to  the  most  certain  facts. 

My   own   conviction    has   long   been    that   in    these 

the  Book  by  most  eminent  modern  critics  "  will  remain  false  so  long 
as  the  word  of  Christ  is  true — that  is,  for  ever."  This  is  to  make  "  the 
word  of  Christ"  the  equivalent  of  a  mere  theological  blindness  and 
prejudice !  Assertions  which  are  utterly  baseless  can  only  be  met  by 
assertions  based  on  science  and  the  love  of  truth.  Thus  when  Rup- 
precht  says  that  "the  modern  criticism  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  is 
unchristian,  immoral,  and  unscientific,"  we  can  only  reply  with  disdain, 
Novimus  istas  \r]Kv6ov$.  In  the  present  day  they  are  mere  bluster 
of  impotent  odium  theologicum. 


PECULIARITIES   OF  THE  HISTORIC  SECTION      43 

Haggadoth,  in  which  Jewish  literature  dehghted  in  the 
prae-Christian  era,  and  which  continued  to  be  written 
even  till  the  Middle  Ages,  there  was  not  the  least 
pretence  or  desire  to  deceive  at  all.  I  believe  them 
to  have  been  put  forth  as  moral  legends — as  avowed 
fiction  nobly  used  for  the  purposes  of  religious  teaching 
and  encouragement.  In  ages  of  ignorance,  in  which 
no  such  thing  as  literary  criticism  existed,  a  popular 
Haggada  might  soon  come  to  be  regarded  as  historical, 
just  as  the  Homeric  lays  were  among  the  Greeks,  or 
just  as  Defoe's  story  of  the  Plague  of  London  was 
taken  for  literal  history  by  many  readers  even  in  the 
seventeenth  century. 

Ingenious  attempts  have  been  made  to  show  that 
the  author  of  this  Book  evinces  an  intim.ate  familiarity 
with  the  circumstances  of  the  Babylonian  religion, 
society,  and  history.  In  many  cases  this  is  the  reverse 
of  the  fact.  The  instances  adduced  in  favour  of  any 
knowledge  except  of  the  most  general  description  are 
entirely  delusive.  It  is  frivolous  to  maintain,  with 
Lenormant,  that  an  exceptional  acquaintance  with 
Babylonian  custom  was  required  to  describe  Nebu- 
chadrezzar as  consulting  diviners  for  the  interpretation 
of  a  dream  I  To  say  nothing  of  the  fact  that  a  similar 
custom  has  prevailed  in  all  nations  and  all  ages  from 
the  days  of  Samuel  to  those  of  Lobengula,  the  writer 
had  the  prototype  of  Pharaoh  before  him,  and  has 
evidently  been  influenced  by  the  story  of  Joseph.^ 
Again,  so  far  from  showing  surprising  acquaintance 
with  the  organisation  of  the  caste  of  Babylonian 
diviners,  the  writer  has  made  a  mistake  in  their  very 
name,  as  well  as  in  the  statement  that  a  faithful  Jew, 

'  Gen.  xli. 


44  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

like  Daniel,  was  made  the  chief  of  their  college  I  ^  Nor, 
again,  was  there  anything  so  unusual  in  the  presence 
of  women  at  feasts — also  recognised  in  the  Haggada 
of  Esther — as  to  render  this  a  sign  of  extraordinary 
information.  Once  more,  is  it  not  futile  to  adduce 
the  allusion  to  punishment  by  burning  alive  as  a  proof 
of  insight  into  Babylonian  peculiarities  ?  This  punish- 
ment had  already  been  mentioned  by  Jeremiah  in  the 
case  of  Nebuchadrezzar.  "  Then  shall  be  taken  up 
a  curse  by  all  the  captivity  of  Judah  which  are  in 
Babylon,  saying.  The  Lord  make  thee  like  Zedekiah 
and  like  Ahab  "  (two  false  prophets),  **  whom  the  King 
of  Babylon  roasted  in  the  fire^  ^  Moreover,  it  occurs 
in  the  Jewish  traditions  which  described  a  miraculous 
escape  of  exactly  the  same  character  in  the  legend  of 
Abraham.  He,  too,  had  been  supernaturally  rescued 
from  the  burning  fiery  furnace  of  Nimrod,  to  which 
he  had  been  consigned  because  he  refused  to  worship 
idols  in  Ur  of  the  Chaldees.^ 

When  the  instances  mainly  relied  upon  prove  to  be 
so  evidentially  valueless,  it  would  be  waste  of  time  to 
follow  Professor  Fuller  through  the  less  important  and 
more  imaginary  proofs  of  accuracy  which  his  industry 
has  amassed.  Meanwhile  the  feeblest  reasoner  will 
see  that  while  a  writer  may  easily  be  accurate  in 
general  facts,   and  even  in   details,   respecting  an  age 

*  See  Lenormant,  La  Divination^  p.  219. 

"^  Jer.xxix.  22.  The  tenth  verse  of  this  very  chapter  is  referred  to 
in  Dan.  ix.  2.  The  custom  continued  in  the  East  centuries  afterwards. 
"And  if  it  was  known  to  a  Roman  writer  (Quintus  Curtius,  v.  i)  in 
the  days  of  Vespasian,  why  "  (Mr.  Bevan  pertinently  asks)  "  should 
it  not  have  been  known  to  a  Palestinian  writer  who  lived  centuries 
earlier  ?  "   (A.  A.  Bevan,  Short  Commeritary,  p.  22). 

^  Avodah-Zarah,  f.  3,  I  ;  Sanhedrin,  f.  93,  I ;  Pesachini^  f.  118,  i ; 
Eiruvin,  f.  53,   I. 


PECULIARITIES   OF  THE  HISTORIC  SECTION      45 

long  previous  to  that  in  which  he  wrote,  the  existence 
of  violent  errors  as  to  matters  with  which  a  con- 
temporary must  have  been  familiar  at  once  refutes  all 
pretence  of  historic  authenticity  in  a  book  professing 
to  have  been  written  by  an  author  in  the  days  and 
country  which  he  describes. 

Now  such  mistakes  there  seem  to  be,  and  not  a  few 
of  them,  in  the  pages  of  the  Book  of  Daniel.  One  or 
two  of  them  can  perhaps  be  explained  away  by  pro- 
cesses which  would  amply  suffice  to  show  that  "  yes  " 
means  *'  no,"  or  that  "  black  "  is  a  description  of  "white  " ; 
but  each  repetition  of  such  processes  leaves  us  more  and 
more  incredulous.  If  errors  be  treated  as  corruptions 
of  the  text,  or  as  later  interpolations,  such  arbitrary 
methods  of  treating  the  Book  are  practically  an  admis- 
sion that,  as  it  stands,  it  cannot  be  regarded  as  historical. 

I.  We  are,  for  instance,  met  by  what  seems  to  be  a 
remarkable  error  in  the  very  first  verse  of  the  Book, 
which  tells  us  that  ^^  In  the  third  year  of  Jehoiaktm, 
King  of  Judah,  came  Nebuchad;?ezzar " — as  in  later 
days  he  was  incorrectly  called — ''  King  of  Bablyon, 
unto  Jerusalem,  and  besieged  it." 

It  is  easy  to  trace  whence  the  error  sprang.  Its 
source  lies  in  a  book  which  is  the  latest  in  the  whole 
Canon,  and  in  many  details  difficult  to  reconcile  with 
the  Book  of  Kings — a  book  of  which  the  Hebrew 
resembles  that  of  Daniel — the  Book  of  Chronicles.  In 
2  Chron.  xxxvi.  6  we  are  told  that  Nebuchad/^ezzar 
came  up  against  Jehoiakim,  and  **  bound  him  in  fetters 
to  carry  him  to  Babylon  " ;  and  also — to  which  the 
author  of  Daniel  directly  refers — that  he  carried  off  some 
of  the  vessels  of  the  House  of  God,  to  put  them  in  the 
treasure-house  of  his  god.  In  this  passage  it  is  not 
said  that  this  occurred  '*  in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim," 


46  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

who  reigned  eleven  years ;  but  in  2  Kings  xxiv.  i  we 
are  told  that  "  in  his  days  Nebuchadnezzar  came  up, 
and  Jehoiakim  became  his  servant  three  yearsT  The 
passage  in  Daniel  looks  like  a  confused  reminiscence 
of  the  "three  years"  with  "the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim." 
The  elder  and  better  authority  (the  Book  of  Kings) 
is  silent  about  any  deportation  having  taken  place  in 
the  reign  of  Jehoiakim,  and  so  is  the  contemporary 
Prophet  Jeremiah.  But  in  any  case  it  seems  impossible 
that  it  should  have  taken  place  so  early  as  the  third 
year  of  Jehoiakim,  for  at  that  time  he  was  a  simple 
vassal  of  the  King  of  Egypt.  If  this  deportation  took 
place  in  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim,  it  would  certainly  be 
singular  that  Jeremiah,  in  enumerating  three  others, 
in  the  seventh,  eighteenth,  and  twenty-third  year  of 
Nebuchadrezzar,^  should  make  no  allusion  to  it.  But  it 
is  hard  to  see  how  it  could  have  taken  place  before  Egypt 
had  been  defeated  in  the  Battle  of  Carchemish,  and 
that  was  not  till  b.c.  597,  \\\^  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim.^ 
Not  only  does  Jeremiah  make  no  mention  of  so 
remarkable  a  deportation  as  this,  which  as  the  earliest 
would  have  caused  the  deepest  anguish,  but,  in  the 
fourth  3^ear  of  Jehoiakim  (Jer.  xxxvi.  i),  he  writes  a 
roll  to  threaten  evils  which  are  still  future,  and  in  the 
fifth  year  proclaims  a  fast  in  the  hope  that  the  imminent 
peril  may  even  3'et  be  averted  (Jer.  xxxvi.  6-10).  It 
is  only  after  the  violent  obstinacy  of  the  king  that 
the  destructive  advance  of  Nebuchadrezzar  is  finally 
prophesied  (Jer.  xxxvi.  29)  as  something  which  has 
not  yet  occurred.^ 

*  Jer.  Hi.  28-30.     These  were  in  the  reign  of  Jehoiachin. 
2  Jer.  xlvi.  2  :  comp.  Jer.  xxv.     The  passage  of  Berossus,  quoted  in 
Jos.,  Antt.,  X.  xi.  I,  is  not  trustworthy,  and  does  not  remove  the  difficulty. 
^  The  attempts  of  Keil  and  Pusey  to  get  over  the  difficulty,  if  they 


PECULIARITIES   OF  THE  HISTORIC  SECTION      47 


II.  Nor  are  the  names  in  this  first  chapter  free 
from  difficulty.  Daniel  is  called  Belteshazzar,  and  the 
remark  of  the  King  of  Babylon — ''whose  name  was 
Belteshazzar,  according  to  the  name  of  my  god" — certainly 
suggests  that  the  first  syllable  is  (as  the  Massorets 
assume)  connected  with  the  god  Bel.  But  the  name 
has  nothing  to  do  with  Bel.  No  contemporary  could 
have  fallen  into  such  an  error ;  ^  still  less  a  king  who 
spoke  Babylonian.  Shadrach  may  be  Shudur-akuy 
"  command  of  Aku,"  the  moon-god ;  but  Meshach  is 
inexplicable  ;  and  Abed-nego  is  a  strange  corruption 
for  the  obvious  and  common  Abed-nebo,  "  servant  of 
Nebo."  Such  a  corruption  could  hardly  have  arisen 
till  Nebo  was  practically  forgotten.  And  what  is  the 
meaning  of  "the  Melzar''  (Dan.  i.  11)?  The  A.V. 
takes  it  to  be  a  proper  name ;  the  R.V.  renders  it 
"  the  steward."  But  the  title  is  unique  and  obscure.^ 
Nor  can  anything  be  made  of  the  name  of  Ashpenaz, 
the  prince  of  the  eunuchs,  whom,  in  one  manuscript, 
the  LXX.  call  Abiesdri.^ 

III.  Similar  difficulties  and  uncertainties  meet  us  at 
every  step.  Thus,  in  the  second  chapter  (ii.  i),  the 
dream  of  Nebuchadrezzar  is  fixed  in  the  second  3^ear 

were  valid,  would  reduce  Scripture  to  a  hopeless  riddle.  The  reader 
will  see  all  the  latest  efforts  in  this  direction  in  the  Speaker's 
Comn-tentary  and  the  work  of  Fab  re  d'Envieu.  Even  such  "orthodox" 
writers  as  Dorner,  Delitzsch,  and  Gess,  not  to  mention  hosts  of 
other  great  critics,  have  long  seen  the  desperate  impossibility  of 
these  arguments. 

*  Balatsu-utsur,  "protect  his  life."  The  root  baldtn,  "life,"  is  common 
in  Assyrian  names.  The  mistake  comes  from  the  wrong  vocalisation 
adopted  by  the  Massorets  (Meinhold,  Beitrcige,  p.  27), 

^  Schrader  dubiously  connects  it  with  matstsara,  "guardian." 
^  Lenormant,  p.  182,  regards  it  as  a  corruption  of  Ashbenazar,  "  the 
goddess  has  pruned  the  seed  "  (??) ;  but  assumed  corruptions  of  the 
text  are  an  uncertain  expedient. 


48  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

of  his  reign.  This  does  not  seem  to  be  in  accord 
with  i.  3,  1 8,  which  says  that  Daniel  and  his  three  com- 
panions were  kept  under  the  care  of  the  prince  of  the 
eunuchs  for  three  years.  Nothing,  of  course,  is  easier 
than  to  invent  harmonistic  hypotheses,  such  as  that  of 
Rashi,  that  "  the  second  year  of  the  reign  of  Nebuchad- 
rezzar has  the  wholly  different  meaning  of  ^'  the  second 
year  after  the  destruction  of  the  Temple  " ;  or  as  that  of 
Hengstenberg,  followed  by  many  modern  apologists, 
that  Nebuchadrezzar  had  previously  been  associated  in 
the  kingdom  with  Nabopolassar,  and  that  this  was  the 
second  year  of  his  independent  reign.  Or,  again,  we 
may,  with  Ewald,  read  '*  the  twelfth  year."  But  by 
these  methods  we  are  not  taking  the  Book  as  it  stands, 
but  are  supposing  it  to  be  a  network  of  textual  corrup- 
tions and  conjectural  combinations. 

IV.  In  ii.  2  the  king  summons  four  classes  of  hiero- 
phants  to  disclose  his  dream  and  its  interpretation. 
They  are  the  magicians  (Chartummtm),  the  enchanters 
{Ashshaphtm)y  the  sorcerers  {MechashsKphim)^  and  the 
Chaldeans  {Kasdini)}  The  Chartummim  occur  in  Gen. 
xli.  8  (which  seems  to  be  in  the  writer's  mind) ;  and 
the  MechashsK phim  occur  in  Exod.  vii.  ii,  xxii.  i8  ; 
but  the  mention  of  Kasdim,  **  Chaldeans,"  is,  so  far 
as  we  know,  an  immense  anachronism.  In  much  later 
ages  the  name  was  used,  as  it  was  among  the  Roman 
writers,  for  wandering  astrologers  and  quacks.^  But 
this  degenerate  sense  of  the  word  was,  so  far  as  we 
can  judge,  wholly  unknown  to  the  age  of  Daniel.  It 
never  once  occurs  in  this  sense  on  any  of  the  monu- 
ments.   Unknown  to  the  Assyrian-Babylonian  language, 

•  On  these  see  Rob.  Smith,  Cambr.  Journ.  of  Philol.,  No.  27,  p.  125. 
2  Juv.,  Sat.,  X.  96  :  "  Cum  grege  Chaldaeo";  Val.  Max.,  iii.  i ;  Cic,  De 
Div.,  i.  I,  etc. 


PECULIARITIES   OF  THE  HISTORIC  SECTION       49 

and  only  acquired  long  after  the  end  of  the  Babylonian 
Empire,  such  a  usage  of  the  word  is,  as  Schrader  says, 
'^an  indication  of  the  post-exilic  composition  of  the 
Book."  ^  In  the  days  of  Daniel  "  Chaldeans  "  had  no 
meaning  resembling  that  of  "  magicians "  or  *'  astro- 
logers." In  every  other  writer  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  in  all  contemporary  records,  Kasdim  simply  means 
the  Chaldean  nation,  and  never  a  learned  caste.^  This 
single  circumstance  has  decisive  weight  in  proving  the 
late  age  of  the  Book  of  Daniel. 

V.  Again,  we  find  in  ii.  14,  *' Arioch,  the  chief  of  the 
executioners."  Schrader  precariously  derives  the  name 
from  Eri-aku,  '^  servant  of  the  moon-god  "  ;  but,  how- 
ever that  may  be,  we  already  find  the  name  as  that  of 
a  king  Ellasar  in  Gen.  xiv.  i,  and  we  find  it  again 
for  a  king  of  the  Elymseans  in  Judith  i.  6.  In  ver.  16 
Daniel  "  went  in  and  desired  of  the  king "  a  little 
respite;  but  in  ver.  25  Arioch  tells  the  king,  as  though 
it  were  a  sudden  discovery  of  his  own,  **  I  have  found 
a  man  of  the  captives  of  Judah,  that  wdll  make  known 
unto  the  king  the  interpretation."  This  was  a  sur- 
prising form  of  introduction,  after  we  have  been  told 
that  the  king  himself  had,  by  personal  examination, 
found  that  Daniel  and  his  young  companions  were 
"  ten  times  better  than  all  the  magicians  and  astrologers 
that  were  in  all  his  realm.''^  It  seems,  however,  as  if 
each  of  these  chapters  was  intended  to  be  recited  as 
a  separate  Haggada. 

VI.  In  ii.  46,  after  the  interpretation  of  the  dream, 
'^  the  King  Nebuchadnezzar  fell  upon  his  face,  and 
worshipped  Daniel,  and  commanded  that  they  should  offer 

^  Keilinschr.^  p,  429 ;  Meinhold,  p.  28. 

'^  Isa.  xxiii.  13  ;  Jer.  xxv.  12  ;  Ezck.  xii.  13;  Hab.  i.  6. 

4 


so  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

an  oblation  and  sweet  odours  unto  him"  This  is  another 
of  the  immense  surprises  of  the  Book.  It  is  exactly  the 
kind  of  incident  in  which  the  haughty  theocratic  senti- 
ment of  the  Jews  found  deUght,  and  we  find  a  similar 
spirit  in  the  many  Talmudic  inventions  in  which  Roman 
emperors,  or  other  potentates,  are  represented  as  pay- 
ing extravagant  adulation  to  Rabbinic  sages.  There 
is  (as  we  shall  see)  a  similar  story  narrated  by  Josephus 
of  Alexander  the  Great  prostrating  himself  before  the 
high  priest  Jaddua,  but  it  has  long  been  relegated  to 
the  realm  of  fable  as  an  outcome  of  Jewish  self-esteem.^ 
It  is  probably  meant  as  a  concrete  illustration  of  the 
glowing  promises  of  Isaiah,  that  "  kings  and  queens 
shall  bow  down  to  thee  with  their  faces  towards  the 
earth,  and  lick  up  the  dust  of  thy  feet " ;  ^  and  "the 
sons  of  them  that  despised  thee  shall  bow  themselves 
down  at  the  soles  of  thy  feet."  ^ 

VI  I.  We  further  ask  in  astonishment  whether  Daniel 
could  have  accepted  without  indignant  protest  the  offer- 
ing of  "  an  oblation  and  sweet  odours."  To  say  that 
they  were  only  offered  to  God  in  the  person  of  Daniel 
is  the  idle  pretence  of  all  idolatry.  They  are  expressly 
said  to  be  offered  '^  to  Da.niel."  A  Herod  could  accept 
blasphemous  adulations;*  but  a  Paul  and  a  Barnabas 
deprecate  such  devotions  with  intense  disapproval.^ 

VIII.  In  ii.  48  Nebuchadrezzar  appoints  Daniel,  as 
a  revv-ard  for  his  wisdom,  to  rule  over  the  whole  province 
of  Babylon,  and  to  be  Rab-sigmn^  ^*  chief  ruler,"  and 
to  be  over  all  the  wise  men  {Khakamtm)  of  Babylon. 
Lenormant  treats  this  statement  as  an  interpolation, 
because  he  regards  it  as  ^^  evidently  impossible."     We 

1  Jos.,  Antt.,  XI.  viii.  5.  "  Acts  xii.  22,  23. 

2  Isa.  xlix.  23.  ^  Acts  xiv.  ii,  12,  xxviii.  6. 

3  Isa.  Ix.  14. 


PECULIARITIES  OF  THE  HISTORIC  SECTION      51 

know  that  in  the  Babylonian  priesthood,  and  especially 
among  the  sacred  caste,  there  was  a  passionate  religious 
intolerance.  It  is  inconceivable  that  they  should  have 
accepted  as  their  religious  superior  a  monotheist  who 
was  the  avowed  and  uncompromising  enemy  to  their 
whole  system  of  idolatry.  It  is  equally  inconceivable 
that  Daniel  should  have  accepted  the  position  of  a 
hierophant  in  a  polytheistic  cult.  In  the  next  three 
chapters  there  is  no  allusion  to  Daniel's  tenure  of  these 
strange  and  exalted  offices,  either  civil  or  religious.^ 

IX.  The  third  chapter  contains  another  story,  told 
in  a  style  of  wonderful  stateliness  and  splendour,  and 
full  of  glorious  lessons ;  but  here  again  we  encounter 
linguistic  and  other  difficulties.  Thus  in  iii.  2,  though 
^*all  the  rulers  of  the  provinces"  and  officers  of  all 
ranks  are  summoned  to  the  dedication  of  Nebuchad- 
rezzar's colossus,  there  is  not  an  allusion  to  Daniel 
throughout  the  chapter.  Four  of  the  names  of  the 
officers  in  iii.  2,  3,  appear,  to  our  surprise,  to  be 
Persian ;  ^  and,  of  the  six  musical  instruments,  three — 
the  lute,  psaltery,  and  bagpipe^ — have  obvious  Greek 
names,  two  of  which  (as  already  stated)  are  of  late 
origin,  while  another,  the  saUka^  resembles  the  Greek 
G-ajJb^vicT]^  but  may  have  come  to  the  Greeks  from  the 
Aramaeans.'*  The  incidents  of  the  chapter  are  such  as 
find  no  analogy  throughout  the  Old  or  New  Testament, 
but  exactly  resemble  those  of  Jewish  moralising  fiction, 
of  which  they  furnish  the  most  perfect  specimen.     It 

*  See  Jer.  xxxix.  3.  And  if  he  held  this  position,  how  could  he 
be  absent  in  chap,  iii,  ? 

^  Namely,  the  words  for  "  satraps,"  "  governors,"  "  counsellors,"  and 
"judges,"  as  well  as  the  courtiers  in  iii.  24.  Bleek  thinks  that  to 
enhance  the  stateliness  of  the  occasion  the  writer  introduced  as  many 
official  names  as  he  knew. 

^  Supra,  p.  23.  ••  Athen.,  Deipnos.,  iv.  175. 


52 


THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


is  exactly  the  kind  of  concrete  comment  which  a  Jewish 
writer  of  piety  and  genius,  for  the  encouragement  of 
his  afflicted  people,  might  have  based  upon  such  a 
passage  as  Isa.  xliii.  2,  3  :  ''  When  thou  walkest  through 
the  fire,  thou  shalt  not  be  burned;  neither  shall  the 
flame  kindle  upon  thee.  For  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God, 
the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  thy  Saviour."  Nebuchadrezzar's 
decree,  "That  Qwery  people,  nation ,  and  language,  which 
speak  anything  amiss  against  the  God  of  Shadrach, 
Meshach,  and  Abed-nego,  shall  be  cut  in  pieces,  and  their 
houses  shall  be  made  a  dunghill,^^  can  only  be  paralleled 
out  of  the  later  Jewish  literature.^ 

X.  In  chap.  iv.  we  have  another  monotheistic  decree 
of  the  King  of  Bab3'lon,  announcing  to  "  all  people, 
nations,  and  languages"  what  "the  high  God  hath 
wrought  towards  me."  It  gives  us  a  vision  which 
recalls  Ezek.  xxxi.  3-18,  and  may  possibly  have  been 
suggested  by  that  fine  chapter.^  The  language  varies 
between  the  third  and  the  first  person.  In  iv.  13 
Nebuchadrezzar  speaks  of  "  a  watcher  and  a  holy 
one."  This  is  the  first  appearance  in  Jewish  literature 
of  the  word  '/r,  "  watcher,"  which  is  so  common  in  the 
Book  of  Enoch.^  In  ver.  26  the  expression  "  after 
thou  shalt  have  known  that  the  heavens  do  rule  "  is 
one  which  has  no  analogue  in  the  Old  Testament, 
though  exceedingly  common  in  the  superstitious 
periphrases  of  the  later  Jewish  literature.     As  to  the 

*  The  Persian  titles  in  iii.  24  alone  suffice  to  indicate  that  this 
could  not  be  Nebuchadrezzar's  actual  decree.  See  further,  Meinhold, 
pp.  30,  31.  We  are  evidently  dealing  with  a  writer  who  introduces 
many  Persian  words,  with  no  consciousness  that  they  could  not  have 
been  used  by  Babylonian  kings. 

2  The  writer  of  Daniel  was  evidently  acquainted  with  the  Book 
of  Ezekiel.  See  Delitzsch  in  Herzog,  s.v.  "Daniel,"  and  Driver, 
p.  476  '  See  iv.  16,  25-30. 


PECULIARITIES  OF  THE  HISTORIC  SECTION       53 

story  of  the  strange  lycanthropy  with  which  Nebu- 
chadrezzar was  afQicted,  though  it  receives  nothing 
but  the  faintest  shadow  of  support  from  any  historic 
record,  it  may  be  based  on  some  fact  preserved  by 
tradition.  It  is  probably  meant  to  reflect  on  the  mad 
ways  of  Antiochus.  The  general  phrase  of  Berossus, 
which  tells  us  that  Nebuchadrezzar  **  fell  into  a  sick- 
ness and  died,"^  has  been  pressed  into  an  historical 
verification  of  this  narrative  1  But  the  phrase  might 
have  been  equally  well  used  in  the  most  ordinary 
case,^  which  shows  what  fancies  have  been  adduced 
to  prove  that  we  are  here  dealing  with  history.  The 
fragment  of  Abydenus  in  his  Assyn'aca,  preserved  by 
Eusebius,^  shows  that  there  was  some  story  about 
Nebuchadrezzar  having  uttered  remarkable  words  upon 
his  palace-roof  The  announcement  of  a  coming 
irrevocable  calamity  to  the  kingdom  from  a  Persian 
mule,  ''  the  son  of  a  Median  woman,"  and  the  wish 
that  ^^  Ihe  alien  conqueror"  might  be  driven  ^'through 
the  desert  where  wild  beasts  seek  their  food,  and 
birds  fly  hither  and  thither,"  has,  however,  very  little 
to  do  with  the  story  of  Nebuchadrezzar's  madness. 
Abydenus  says  that,  "  when  he  had  thus  prophesied, 
he  suddenly  vanished  "  ;  and  he  adds  nothing  about 
any  restoration  to  health  or  to  his  kingdom.     All  that 


'  Preserved  by  Jos.  :  comp.  Ap.,  I.  20. 

^  The  phrase  is  common  enough  :  e.g.,  in  Jos.,  Antt.,  X.  xi.  i  (comp. 
c.  Ap.f  I.  19) ;  and  a  similar  phrase,  iixireadbv  els  dppcoaTiau,  t's  used  of 
Antiochus  Epiphanes  in  I  Mace.  vi.  8. 

3  Prcep.  Ev.,  ix.  41.  Schrader  {K.  A.  T.,  ii.  432)  thinks  that 
Berossus  and  the  Book  of  Daniel  may  both  point  to  the  same 
tradition;  but  the  Chaldee  tradition  quoted  by  the  late  writer 
Abydenus  errs  likewise  in  only  recognising  two  Babylonish  kings 
instead  oi  four,  exclusive  of  Belshazzar.  See,  too,  Schrader,  Jahrb. 
furProt.  Theol.y  1 881,  p.  618. 


54  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

can  be  said  is  that  there  was  current  among  the 
Babylonian  Jews  some  popular  legend  of  which  the 
writer  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  availed  himself  for  the 
purpose  of  his  edifying  Midrash. 

Xr,  When  we  reach  the  fifth  chapter,  we  are  faced  by 
a  new  king,  Belshazzar,  who  is  somewhat  emphatically 
called  the  son  of  Nebuchadrezzar.^ 

History  knows  of  no  such  king.^  The  prince  of 
whom  it  does  know  was  never  king,  and  was  a  son, 
not  of  Nebuchadrezzar,  but  of  the  usurper  Nabunaid  ; 
and  between  Nebuchadrezzar  and  Nabunaid  there  were 
three  other  kings.^ 

There  was  a  Belshazzar — -Bel-sar-utsur^  ''  Bel  pro- 
tect the  prince"— and  we  possess  a  clay  cylinder  of 
his  father  Nabunaid,  the  last  king  of  Babylon,  praying 
the  moon-god  that  "  my  son,  the  offspring  of  my  heart, 
might  honour  his  godhead,  and  not  give  himself  to 
sin."*  But  if  we  follow  Herodotus,  this  Belshazzar 
never  came  to  the  throne  ;  and  according  to  Berossus 
he  was  conquered  in  Borsippa.  Xenophon,  indeed, 
speaks  of  "  an  impious  king "  as  being  slain  in 
Babylon;    but   this    is    only   in    an    avowed    romance 

'  Dan.  V.  II.  The  emphasis  seems  to  show  that  "son"  is  really 
meant— not  grandson.  This  is  a  little  strange,  for  Jeremiah  (xxvii.  7) 
had  said  that  the  nations  should  serve  Nebuchadrezzar,  "  and  his  son, 
and  his  son's  son  "  ;  and  in  no  case  was  Belshazzar  Nebuchadrezzar's 
son's  son,  for  his  father  Nabunaid  was  an  usurping  son  of  a  Rab-mag. 

2  Schrader,  p.  434  ff. ;  and  in  Riehm,  Handworterb.,  ii.  163  ;  Pinches, 
in  Smith's  Bibl.  Diet.,  i.  388,  2nd  edn.  The  contraction  into  Belshazzar 
from  Bel-sar-utsur  seems  to  show  a  late  date. 

3  That  the  author  of  Daniel  should  have  fallen  into  these  errors 
is  the  more  remarkable  because  Evil-merodach  is  mentioned  in 
2  Kings  XXV.  27  ;  and  Jeremiah  in  his  round  number  of  seventy 
years  includes  three  generations  (Jer.  xxvii.  7).  Herodotus  and 
Abydenus  made  the  same  mistake.     See  Kamphausen,  pp.  30,  31. 

^  Herod.,  i.  191.     See  RawUnson,  Herod. ^  i.  434. 


PECULIARITIES   OF   THE  HISTORIC  SECTION       55 

which  has  not  the  smallest  historic  validity.^  Schrader 
conjectures  that  Nabunaid  may  have  gone  to  take  the 
field  against  Cyrus  (vv^ho  conquered  and  pardoned 
him,  and  allowed  him  to  end  his  days  as  governor 
of  Karamania),  and  that  Belshazzar  may  have  been 
killed  in  Babylon.  These  are  mere  hypotheses ;  as 
are  those  of  Josephus,^  who  identifies  Belshazzar  with 
Nabunaid  (whom  he  calls  Naboandelon) ;  and  of  Babelon, 
who  tries  to  make  him  the  same  as  Maruduk-shar-utsur 
(as  though  Bel  was  the  same  as  Maruduk),  which  is 
impossible,  as  this  king  reigned  before  Nabunaid.  No 
contemporary  v/riter  could  have  fallen  into  the  error 
either  of  calling  Belshazzar  *'  king  " ;  or  of  insisting 
on  his  being  ''  the  son "  of  Nebuchadrezzar ;  ^  or  of 
representing  him  as  Nebuchadrezzar's  successor.  Nebu- 
chadrezzar was  succeeded  by — 

Evil-merodach      .     .     circ.  b.c.  561  (Avil-marduk).^ 

Nergal-sharezer    .     .     .    ,     „  559  (Nergal-sar-utsur). 

Lakhabbashi-marudu    I  555  (an  infant). 

(Laborosoarchod)       j 

Nabunaid ,,  554- 

Nabunaid  reigned  till  about  b.c.  538,  when  Babylon 
was  taken  by  Cyrus. 

The  conduct  of  Belshazzar  in  the  great  feast  of  this 
chapter  is  probably  meant  as  an  allusive  contrast  to 
the  revels  and  impieties  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  espe- 
cially in  his  infamous  festival  at  the  grove  of  Daphne. 

XII.  ''That  night,"  we  are  told,  ''Belshazzar,  the 
Chaldean  king,  was  slain."     It  has  always  been  sup- 

'  Xen.,  Cyrop.,  VII.  v.  3. 

^  Antt,  X.  xi.  2.     In  c.  Ap.,  I.  20,  he  calls  him  Nabonnedus. 

^  This  is  now  supposed  to  mean  "  grandson  by  marriage,"  by 
inventing  the  hypothesis  that  Nabunaid  married  a  daughter  of 
Nebuchadrezzar.  But  this  does  not  accord  with  Dan.  v.  2,  1 1,  22; 
and  so  in  Baruch  i.  ii,  12.  ^  2  Kings  xxv,  27. 


56  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

posed  that  this  was  an  incident  of  the  capture  of 
Babylon  by  assault,  in  accordance  with  the  story  of 
Herodotus,  repeated  by  so  many  subsequent  writers. 
But  on  this  point  the  inscriptions  of  Cyrus  have 
revolutionised  our  knowledge.  "  There  was  no  siege 
and  capture  of  Babylon ;  the  capital  of  the  Babylonian 
Empire  opened  its  gates  to  the  general  of  Cyrus. 
Gobryas  and  his  soldiers  entered  the  city  without 
fighting,  and  the  daily  services  in  the  great  temple  of 
Bel-merodach  suffered  no  interruption.  Three  months 
later  Cyrus  himself  arrived,  and  made  his  peaceful 
entry  into  the  new  capital  of  his  empire.  We  gather 
from  the  contract-tablets  that  even  the  ordinary  business 
of  the  place  had  not  been  affected  by  the  war.  The 
siege  and  capture  of  Babylon  by  Cyrus  is  really  a 
reflection  into  the  past  of  the  actual  sieges  undergone  by 
the  city  in  the  reigns  of  Darius^  son  of  Hystaspes  and 
Xerxes.  It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  editor  of  the  fifth 
chapter  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  could  have  been  as  little 
a  contemporary  of  the  events  he  professes  to  record  as 
Herodotus.  For  both  alike,  the  true  history  of  the 
Babylonian  Empire  has  been  overclouded  and  fore- 
shortened by  the  lapse  of  time.  The  three  kings  who 
reigned  between  Nebuchadrezzar  and  Nabunaid  have 
been  forgotten,  and  the  last  king  of  the  Babylonian 
Empire  has  become  the  son  of  its  founder."  ^ 

Snatching  at  the  merest  straws,  those  who  try  to 
vindicate  the  accuracy, of  the  writer — although  he  makes 
Belshazzar  a  king,  which  he  never  was ;  and  the  son  of 
Nebuchadrezzar,  which  is  not  the  case ;  or  his  grand- 
son, of  which  there  is  no  tittle  of  evidence ;  and  his 
successor,  whereas  four  kings  intervened ; — think  that 

•  Sayce,  The  Higher  Criticism  and  the  Monuments,  p.  527. 


PECULIARITIES   OF  THE  HISTORIC  SECTION       57 

they  improve  the  case  by  urging  that  Daniel  was  made 
*'  the  third  ruler  in  the  kingdom  " — Nabunaid  being  the 
first,  and  Belshazzar  being  the  second !  Unhappily 
for  their  very  precarious  hypothesis,  the  translation 
''third  ruler"  appears  to  be  entirely  untenable.  It 
means  ''  one  of  a  board  of  three." 

XIII.  In  the  sixth  chapter  we  are  again  met  by 
difficulty  after  difficulty. 

Who,  for  instance,  was  Darius  the  Mede  ?  We  are 
told  (v.  30,  31)  that,  on  the  night  of  his  impious 
banquet,  "  Belshazzar  the  king  of  the  Chaldeans  "  was 
slain,  *'  and  Darius  the  Median  took  the  kingdom, 
being  about  threescore  and  two  years  old."  We  are 
also  told  that  Daniel  ''  prospered  in  the  reign  of  Darius, 
and  in  the  reign  of  Cyrus  the  Persian  "  (vi.  28).  But 
this  Darius  is  not  even  noticed  elsewhere.  Cyrus  was 
the  conqueror  of  Babylon,  and  betw^een  b.c.  538-536 
there  is  no  room  or  possibihty  for  a  Median  ruler. 

The  inference  which  we  should  naturally  draw  from 
these  statements  in  the  Book  of  Daniel,  and  which  all 
readers  have  drawn,  was  that  Babylon  had  been  con- 
quered by  the  Medes,  and  that  only  after  the  death  of 
a  Median  king  did  Cyrus  the  Persian  succeed. 

But  historic  monuments  and  records  entirely  over- 
throw this  supposition.  Cyrus  w^as  the  king  of  Babylon 
from  the  day  that  his  troops  entered  it  without  a  blow. 
He  had  conquered  the  Medes  and  suppressed  their 
royalty.  '*  The  numerous  contract-tables  of  the  ordi- 
nary daily  business  transactions  of  Babylon,  dated  as 
they  are  month  by  month,  and  almost  day  by  day  from 
the  reign  of  Nebuchadrezzar  to  that  of  Xerxes,  prove 
that  between  Nabonidus  and  Cyrus  there  was  no  inter- 
mediate ruler J^  The  contemporary  scribes  and  mer- 
chants of  Babylon  knew  nothing  of  any  King  Belshazzar, 


58  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

and  they  knew  even  less  of  any  King  Darius  the  Mede. 
No  contemporary  writer  could  possibly  have  fallen  into 
such  an  error.^ 

And  against  this  obvious  conclusion,  of  what  possible 
avail  is  it  for  Hengstenberg  to  quote  a  late  Greek 
lexicographer  {Harpocration^  a.d.  170?),  who  says  that 
the  coin  ''  a  daric  "  was  named  after  a  Darius  eariier 
than  the  father  of  Xerxes? — or  for  others  to  identify 
this  shadow^y  Darius  the  Mede  with  Astyages  ?  ^ — or 
with  C3^axare3  II.  in  the  romance  of  Xenophon  ?  ^ — or 
to  say  that  Darius  the  Mede  is  Gobryas  (Ugbaru)  of 
Gutium  ^ — a  Persian,  and  not  a  king  at  all — who  under 
no  circumstances  could  have  been  called  "  the  king  "  by 
a  contemporary  (vi.  12,  ix.  i),  and  whom,  apparently 
for  three  months  only,  Cyrus  made  governor  of  Baby- 

'  I  need  not  enter  here  upon  the  confusion  of  the  Manda  with  the 
Medes,  on  which  see  Sayce,  Higher  Criticism  and  Monuments^  p.  519  ff. 

2  Winer,  Realworterb.,  s.v.  "Darius." 

^  So  Bertholdt,  Von  Lengerke,  Auberlen.  It  is  decidedly  rejected 
by  Schrader  (Riehm,  Handworterb.,  i.  259).  Even  Cicero  said,  "  Cyrus 
ille  a  Xenophonte  non  ad  historiae  fidem  scriptus  est"  {Ad Quint.  Fratr., 
Ep.  i.  3).  Niebuhr  called  the  Cyropcedia ''^  eincn  elenden  und  lappi- 
schen  Roman  "  {Alt.  Gesch.,  i.  116).  He  classes  it  with  Telemaque  or 
Rasselas.  Xenophon  was  probably  the  ultimate  authority  for  the 
statement  of  Josephus  (Antt.,  X.  xi.  4),  which  has  no  weight.  Hero- 
dotus and  Ktesias  know  nothing  of  the  existence  of  any  Cyaxares  II., 
nor  does  the  Second  Isaiah  (xlv.),  who  evidently  contemplates  Cyrus 
as  the  conqueror  and  the  first  king  of  Babylon.  Are  we  to  set  a  pro- 
fessed romancer  like  Xenophon,  and  a  late  compiler  like  Josephus, 
against  these  authorities  ? 

*  T.  W.  Pinches,  in  Smith's  Bibi.  Diet.,  i.  716,  2nd  edn.  Into  this 
theory  are  pressed  the  general  expressions  that  Darius  "received  the 
kingdom"  and  was  "made  king,"  which  have  not  the  least  bearing 
on  it.  They  may  simply  mean  that  he  became  king  by  conquest,  and 
not  in  the  ordinary  course — so  Rosenmiiller,  Hitzig,  Von  Lengerke, 
etc. ;  or  perhaps  the  words  show  some  sense  of  uncertainty  as  to  the 
exact  course  of  events.  The  sequence  of  Persian  kings  in  Seder 
Olam,  28-30,  and  in  Rashi  on  Dan.  v.  i,  ix.  I,  is  equally  unhistorical. 


PECULIARITIES  OF  THE  HISTORIC  SECTION       59 


Ion  ?  How  could  a  contemporary  governor  have 
appointed  "one  hundred  and  twenty  princes  which 
should  be  over  the  whole  kingdom,"  ^  when,  even  in 
the  days  of  Darius  Hystaspis,  there  were  only  twenty 
or  twenty -three  satrapies  in  the  Persian  Empire  ?  '^ 
And  how  could  a  mere  provincial  viceroy  be  approached 
by  *'  all  the  presidents  of  the  kingdom^  the  governors, 
and  the  princes,  the  counsellors,  and  the  captains,"  to 
pass  a  decree  that  any  one  who  for  thirty  days  offered 
any  prayer  to  God  or  man,  except  to  him,  should  be 
cast  into  the  den  of  lions  ?  The  fact  that  such  a  decree 
could  only  be  made  by  a  king  is  emphasised  in  the 
narrative  itself  (vi.  12  :  comp.  iii.  29).  The  sup- 
posed analogies  offered  by  Professor  Fuller  and  others 
in  favour  of  a  decree  so  absurdly  impossible — except  in 
the  admitted  licence  and  for  the  high  moral  purpose  of 
a  Jewish  Haggada — are  to  the  last  degree  futile.  In 
any  ordinary  criticism  they  would  be  set  down  as  idle 
special  pleading.  Yet  this  is  only  one  of  a  multitude 
of  wildly  improbable  incidents,  which,  from  misunder- 
standing of  the  writer's  age  and  purpose,  have  been 
taken  for  sober  history,  though  they  receive  from  his- 
torical records  and  monuments  no  shadov/  of  confirma- 
tion, and  are  in  not  a  few  instances  directly  opposed 
to  all  that  we  now  know  to  be  certain  history.  Even  if 
it  were  conceivable  that  this  hypothetic  "  Darius  the 
Mede "  was  Gobryas,  or  Astyages,  or  Cyaxares,  it  is 
plain  that  the  author  of  Daniel  gives  him  a  name  and 
national  designation  which  lead  to  mere  confusion,  and 
speaks  of  him  in  a  way  which  would  have  been  surely 
avoided  by  any  contemporary. 

*  This  is  supported  by  the  remark  that  this  three-months  viceroy 
"  appointed  governors  in  Babylon  "  ! 

'^  Herod.,  iii.  89  ;  Records  of  the  Past,  viii.  88. 


6o  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

*'  Darius  the  Mede,"  says  Professor  Sayce,  '*  is  in  fact 
a  reflection  into  the  past  of  Darius  the  son  of  Hystaspes} 
just  as  the  siege  and  capture  of  Babylon  by  Cyrus  are  a 
reflection  into  the  past  of  its  siege  and  capture  by  the 
same  prince.  The  name  of  Darius  and  the  story  of  the 
slaughter  of  the  Chaldean  king  go  together.  They  are 
alike  derived  from  the  unwritten  history  which,  in  the 
East  of  to-day,  is  still  made  by  the  people,  and  which 
blends  together  in  a  single  picture  the  manifold  events 
and  personages  of  the  past.  It  is  a  history  which 
has  no  perspective,  though  it  is  based  on  actual  facts ; 
the  accurate  combinations  of  the  chronologer  have  no 
meaning  for  it,  and  the  events  of  a  century  are  crowded 
into  a  few  years.  This  is  the  kind  of  history  which 
the  Jewish  mind  in  the  age  of  the  Talmud  loved  to  adapt 
to  moral  and  religious  purposes.  This  kind  of  history 
then  becomes  as  it  were  a  parable ,  and  under  the  name 
of  Haggada  serves  to  illustrate  that  teaching  of  the 
lawr  2 

The  favourable  view  given  of  the  character  of  the 
imaginary  Darius  the  Mede,  and  his  regard  for  Daniel, 
may  have  been  a  confusion  with  the  Jevvish  reminiscences 
of  Darin s,  son  of  Hystaspes,  who  permitted  the  re- 
building of  the  Temple  under  Zerubbabel.^ 

If  we  look  for  the  source  of  the  confusion,  we  see  it 

'  See,  too,  Meinhold  {Beitrage,  p.  46),  who  concludes  his  survey 
with  the  words,  "  Sprachliche  wie  sachliche  Griinde  machen  es  nicht 
nur  wahrscheinlkh  sondern  gewiss  dass  an  danielsche  Autorschaft  von 
Dan.  ii.-vi.,  iiberhanpt  an  die  Entstehung  zur  Zeit  der  jiidischen  Ver- 
bannung  nicht  zu  denken  ist."  He  adds  that  almost  all  scholars 
believe  the  chapters  to  be  no  older  than  the  age  of  the  Maccabees,  and 
that  even  Kahnis  {Dogmatik,  i.  376)  and  Delitzsch  (Herzog,  s.v. 
"  Dan.")  give  up  their  genuineness.  He  himself  believes  that  these 
Aramaic  chapters  were  incorporated  by  a  later  writer,  who  wrote  the 
introduction. 

■^  Sayce,  I.e.,  p.  529.  ^  Kamphausen,  p.  45. 


PECULIARITIES  lOF  THE  HISTORIC  SECTION       6i 

perhaps  in  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  (xiii.  17,  xiv.  6-22), 
that  the  Medes  should  be  the  destroyers  of  Babylon  ; 
or  in  that  of  Jeremiah — a  prophet  of  whom  the  author 
had  made  a  special  study  (Dan.  ix.  2) — to  the  same 
effect  (Jer.  li.  11-28)  ;  together  with  the  tradition  that 
a  Darius — namely,  the  son  of  Hystaspes — had  once 
conquered  Babylon. 

XIV.  But  to  make  confusion  worse  confounded,  if 
these  chapters  were  meant  for  histor}^,  the  problematic 
^'Darius  the  Mede  "  is  in  Dan.  ix.  I  called  ''the  son  of 
Ahasuerus." 

Now  Ahasuerus  (Achashverosh)  is  the  same  as  Xerxes, 
and  is  the  Persian  name  Khshyarsha ;  and  Xerxes  was 
the  son^  not  the  father,  of  Darius  Hystaspis,  who  was  a 
Persian^  not  a  Mede.  Before  Darius  Hystaspis  could 
have  been  transformed  into  the  son  of  his  own  son 
Xerxes,  the  reigns,  not  only  of  Darius,  but  also  of 
Xerxes,  must  have  long  been  past. 

XV.  There  is  yet  another  historic  sign  that  this 
Book  did  not  originate  till  the  Persian  Empire  had 
long  ceased  to  exist.  In  xi.  2  the  writer  only  knows 
oi  four  kings  of  Persia.^  These  are  evidently  Cyrus, 
Cambyses,  Darius  Hystaspis,  and  Xerxes — whom  he 
describes  as  the  richest  of  them.  This  king  is  de- 
stroyed by  the  kingdom  of  Grecia — an  obvious  con- 
fusion of  popular  tradition  between  the  defeat  inflicted 
on  the  Persians  by  the  Republican  Greeks  in  the  days 

*  Sayce,  I.e.  The  author  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  seems  only  to 
have  known  of  three  kings  of  Persia  after  Cyrus  (xi.  2).  But  five  are 
mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament — Cyrus,  Darius,  Artaxerxes,  Xerxes, 
and  Darius  III.  (Codomannus,  Neh.  xii.  22).  There  were  three 
Dariuses  and  three  Artaxerxes,  but  he  only  knows  one  of  each 
name  (Kamphausen,  p.  32).  He  might  easily  have  overlooked  the 
fact  that  the  Darius  of  Neh.  xii.  22  was  a  wholly  different  person 
from  the  Darius  of  Ezra  vi.  i. 


62  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

of  Xerxes  (b.c.  480),  and  the  overthrow  of  the  Persian 
kingdom  under  Darius  Codomannus  by  Alexander  the 
Great  (b.c.  333). 

These,  then,  are  some  of  the  apparent  historic  im- 
possibiHties  by  which  we  are  confronted  when  we 
regard  this  Book  as  professed  history.  The  doubts 
suggested  by  such  seeming  errors  are  not  in  the  least 
removed  by  the  acervation  of  endless  conjectures. 
They  are  greatly  increased  by  the  fact  that,  so  far 
from  standing  alone,  they  are  intensified  by  other 
difficulties  which  arise  under  every  fresh  aspect  under 
which  the  Book  is  studied.  Behrmann,  the  latest 
editor,  sums  up  his  studies  with  the  remark  that 
"  there  is  an  almost  universal  agreement  that  the  Book, 
in  its  present  form  and  as  a  whole,  had  its  origin  in  the 
Maccabean  age  ;  while  there  is  a  widening  impression 
that  in  its  purpose  it  is  not  an  exclusive  product  of 
that  period."  No  amount  of  casuistical  ingenuity  can 
long  prevail  to  overthrow  the  spreading  conviction  that 
the  views  of  Hengstenberg,  Havernick,  Keil,  Pusey, 
and  their  followers,  have  been  refuted  by  the  light  of 
advancing  knowledge — which  is  a  light  kindled  for  us 
by  God  Himself. 


CHAPTER  IV 

GENERAL  STRUCTURE   OF  THE  BOOK 

IN  endeavouring  to  see  the  idea  and  construction  of 
a  book  there  is  always  much  room  for  the  play 
of  subjective  considerations.  Meinhold  has  especially 
studied  this  subject,  but  we  cannot  be  certain  that  his 
views  are  more  than  imaginative.  He  thinks  that 
chap,  ii.,  in  which  we  are  strongly  reminded  of  the 
story  of  Joseph  and  of  Pharaoh's  dreams,  is  intended 
to  set  forth  God  as  Omniscient,  and  chap.  iii.  as 
Omnipotent.  To  these  conceptions  is  added  in  chap.  iv. 
the  insistence  upon  God's  All-holiness.  The  fifth 
and  sixth  chapters  form  one  conception.  Since  the 
death  of  Belshazzar  is  assigned  to  the  night  of  his 
banquet  no  edict  could  be  ascribed  to  him  resembling 
those  attributed  to  Nebuchadrezzar.  The  effect  of 
Daniel's  character  and  of  the  Divine  protection  ac- 
corded to  him  on  the  mind  of  Darius  is  expressed 
in  the  strong  edict  of  the  latter  in  vi.  26,  27.  This 
is  meant  to  illustrate  that  the  All-wise,  Almighty,  All- 
holy  God  is  the  Only  Living  God.  The  consistent  and 
homogeneous  object  of  the  whole  historic  section  is  to 
set  forth  the  God  of  the  Hebrews  as  exalting  Himself 
in  the  midst  of  heathendom,  and  extorting  submission 
by  mighty  portents  from  heathen  potentates.  In  this 
the  Book  offers  a  general  analogy  to  the  section  of  the 
history  of  the  Israelites  in  Egypt  narrated  in  Exod.  i.  12. 

63 


64  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

The  culmination  of  recognition  as  to  the  power  of  God 
is  seen  in  the  decree  of  Darius  (vi.  26,  27),  as  compared 
with  that  of  Nebuchadrezzar  in  iv.  33.  According  to 
this  view,  the  meaning  and  essence  of  each  separate 
chapter  are  given  in  its  closing  section,  and  there  is 
artistic  advance  to  the  great  climax,  marked  alike  by 
the  resemblances  of  these  four  paragraphs  (ii.  47,  iii. 
28,  29,  iv.  37,  vi.  26,  27),  and  by  their  differences. 
To  this  main  purpose  all  the  other  elements  of  these 
splendid  pictures — the  faithfulness  of  Hebrew  wor- 
shippers, the  abasement  of  blaspheming  despots,  the 
mission  of  Israel  to  the  nations — are  subordinated. 
The  chief  aim  is  to  set  forth  the  helpless  humiliation  of 
all  false  gods  before  the  might  of  the  God  of  Israel. 
It  might  be  expressed  in  the  words,  ^'  Of  a  truth,  Lord, 
the  kings  of  Assyria  have  laid  waste  all  the  nations, 
and  cast  their  gods  into  the  fire ;  for  they  were  no 
gods,  but  the  work  of  men's  hands,  wood  and  stone." 

A  closer  glance  at  these  chapters  will  show  some 
grounds  for  these  conclusions. 

Thus,  in  the  second  chapter,  the  magicians  and 
sorcerers  repudiate  all  possibility  of  revealing  the  king's 
dream  and  its  interpretation,  because  they  are  but 
men,  and  the  gods  have  not  their  dwelling  with  mortal 
flesh  (ii.  11);  but  Daniel  can  tell  the  dream  because  he 
stands  near  to  his  God,  who,  though  He  is  in  heaven, 
yet  is  All-wise,  and  revealeth  secrets. 

In  the  third  chapter  the  destruction  of  the  strongest 
soldiers  of  Nebuchadrezzar  by  fire,  and  the  absolute 
deliverance  of  the  three  Jews  whom  they  have  flung 
into  the  furnace,  convince  Nebuchadrezzar  that  no 
god  can  deliver  as  the  Almighty  does,  and  that  there- 
fore it  is  blasphemy  deserving  of  death  to  utter  a  word 
against  Him. 


THE  GENERAL  STRUCTURE   OF   THE  BOOK         65 

In  chap.  iv.  the  supremacy  of  Daniel's  wisdom  as 
derived  from  God,  the  fulfilment  of  the  threatened 
judgment,  and  the  deliverance  of  the  mighty  King  of 
Babylon  from  his  degrading  madness  when  he  lifts 
up  his  eyes  to  heaven,  convince  Nebuchadrezzar  still 
more  deeply  that  God  is  not  only  a  Great  God,  but  that 
no  other  being,  man  or  god,  can  even  be  compared  to 
Him.  He  is  the  Only  and  the  Eternal  God,  who  ''  doeth 
according  to  His  will  in  the  army  of  heaven"  as  well  as 
"among  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth,"  and  "none  can 
stay  His  hand."  This  is  the  highest  point  of  con- 
viction. Nebuchadrezzar  confesses  that  God  is  not 
only  Primus  inter  pares,  but  the  Irresistible  God,  and 
his  own  God.  And  after  this,  in  the  fifth  chapter, 
Daniel  can  speak  to  Belshazzar  of  "  the  Lord  of 
heaven "  (v.  23) ;  and  as  the  king's  Creator ;  and  of 
the  nothingness  of  gods  of  silver,  and  gold,  and  brass, 
and  wood,  and  stone ; — as  though  those  truths  had 
already  been  decisively  proved.  And  this  belief  finds 
open  expression  in  the  decree  of  Darius  (vi.  26,  27), 
which  concludes  the  historic  section. 

It  is  another  indication  of  this  main  purpose  of  these 
histories  that  the  plural  form  of  the  Name  of  God — Elohtm 
— does  not  once  occur  in  chaps,  ii.-vi.  It  is  used  in 
i.  2,  9,  17  ;  but  not  again  till  the  ninth  chapter,  where 
it  occurs  twelve  times;  once  in  the  tenth  (x.  12)  ;  and 
twice  of  God  in  the  eleventh  chapter  (xi.  32,  37).  In 
the  prophetic  section  (vii.  18,  22,  25,  27)  we  have 
"  Most  High  "  in  the  plural  (^eliontn)  ;  ^  but  with  refer- 
ence only  to  the  One  God  (see  vii.  25).  But  in  all 
cases  where  the  heathen  are  addressed  this  plural 
becomes  the  singular  (ehllehy    '''^^),  as  throughout  the 

^  Literally,  as  in  margin,  ^^mont  high  things"  or  ^'places" 

5 


66  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

first  six  chapters.  This  avoidance  of  so  common  a 
word  as  the  plural  Elohim  for  God,  because  the  plural 
form  might  conceivably  have  been  misunderstood  by 
the  heathen,  shows  the  elaborate  construction  of  the 
Book.^  God  is  called  Eloah  Shamain,  ''  God  of  heaven," 
in  the  second  and  third  chapters ;  but  in  later  chapters 
we  have  the  common  post-exilic  phrase  in  the  plural.^ 

In  the  fourth  and  fifth  chapters  we  have  God's  Holi- 
ness first  brought  before  us,  chiefly  on  its  avenging 
side ;  and  it  is  not  till  we  have  witnessed  the  proof  of 
His  Unity,  Wisdom,  Omnipotence,  and  Justice,  which 
it  is  the  mission  of  Israel  to  make  manifest  among  the 
heathen,  that  all  is  summed  up  in  the  edict  of  Darius 
to  all  people,  nations,  and  languages. 

The  omission  of  any  express  recognition  of  God's 
tender  compassion  is  due  to  the  structure  of  these 
chapters ;  for  it  would  hardly  be  possible  for  heathen 
potentates  to  recognise  that  attribute  in  the  immediate 
presence  of  His  judgments.  It  is  somewhat  remarkable 
that  the  name  ''  Jehovah  "  is  avoided.^  As  the  Jews  pur- 
posely pronounced  it  with  wrong  vowels,  and  the  LXX. 
render  it  by  Kvpco^;,  the  Samaritan  by  no^^i^,  and  the 
Rabbis  by  ''the  Name,"  so  we  find  in  the  Book  of 
Daniel  a  similar  avoidance  of  the  awful  Tetragrammaton. 

'  In  iv.  5,  6 ;  and  elohin  means  "  gods  "  in  the  mouth  of  a  heathen 
("spirit  of  the  holy  gods  "), 

^  Elohin  occurs  repeatedly  in  chap,  ix.,  and  in  x.  I2,  xi.  32,  37. 
^  It  only  occurs  in  Dan,  ix. 


A 


CHAPTER  V 

THE   THEOLOGY  OF  THE  BOOK   OF  DANIEL 

S  regards  the  religious  views  of  the  Book  of  Daniel 
some  of  them  at  any  rate  are  in  full  accordance 
with  the  belief  in  the  late  origin  of  the  Book  to  which 
we  are  led  by  so  many  indications.^ 

I.  Thus  in  Dan.  xii.  2  (for  we  may  here  so  far  anti- 
cipate the  examination  of  the  second  section  of  the 
Book)  we  meet,  for  the  first  time  in  Scripture,  with  a 
distinct  recognition  of  the  resurrection  of  the  individual 
dead.^  This,  as  all  know,  is  a  doctrine  of  which  we 
only  find  the  faintest  indication  in  the  earlier  books  of 
the  Canon.  Although  the  doctrine  is  still  but  dimly 
formulated,  it  is  clearer  in  this  respect  than  Isa.  xxv.  8, 
xxvi.  19. 

II.  Still  more  remarkable  is  the  special  prominence 
of  angels.  It  is  not  God  who  goes  forth  to  war 
(Judg.  V.  13,  23),  or  takes  personal  part  in  the  deliver- 
ance or  punishment  of  nations  (Isa.  v.  26,  vii.  18). 
Throned  in  isolated  and  unapproachable  transcendence, 
He  uses  the  agency  of  intermicdiate  beings  (Dan.  iv.  14).^ 

'  The  description  of  God  as  "  the  Ancient  of  Days  "  with  garments 
white  as  snow,  and  of  His  throne  of  flames  on  burning  wheels,  is 
found  again  in  the  Book  of  Enoch,  written  about  B.C.  141  (Enoch  xiv.). 

2  See  Dan.  xii.  2.  Comp.  Jos.,  B.  /.,  II.  viii.  14;  Enoch  xxii.  13, 
Ix.  1-5,  etc. 

^  Comp.  Smend,  Alitest.  Relig,  Gesch.,  p.  530.  For  references  to 
67 


68  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

In  full  accordance  with  late  developments  of  Jewish 
opinion  angels  are  mentioned  by  special  names,  and 
appear  as  Princes  and  Protectors  of  special  lands.^  In 
no  other  book  in  the  Old  Testament  have  we  any 
names  given  to  angels,  or  any  distinction  between  their 
dignities,  or  any  trace  of  their  being  in  mutual  rivalry 
as  Princes  or  Patrons  of  different  nationalities.  These 
remarkable  features  of  angelology  only  occur  in  the 
later  epoch,  and  in  the  apocalyptic  literature  to  which 
this  Book  belongs.  Thus  they  are  found  in  the  LXX, 
translations  of  Deut.  xxxii.  8  and  Isa.  xxx.  4,  and  in 
such  post-Maccabean  books  as  those  of  Enoch  and 
Esdras.^ 

III.  Again,  we  have  the  fixed  custom  of  three  daily 
formal  prayers,  uttered  towards  the  Kibleh  of  Jerusalem. 
This  m.ay,  possibly,  have  begun  during  the  Exile.  It 
became  a  normal  rule  for  later  ages.^  The  Book,  how- 
ever, like  that  of  Jonah,  is,  as  a  whole,  remarkably  free 
from  any  extravagant  estimate  of  Levitical  minutiae. 

IV.  Once  more,  for  the  first  time  in  Jewish  story, 
we  find  extreme  importance  attached  to  the  Levitical 
distinction  of  clean  and  unclean  meats,  which  also 
comes  into  prominence  in  the  age  of  the  Maccabees, 
as  it  afterwards  constituted  a  most  prominent  element 
in  the  ideal  of  Talmudic  religionism.*     Daniel  and  the 

angels  in  Old  Testament  see  Job  i.  6,  xxxviii.  7 ;  Jer.  xxiii.  18 ;  Psalm 
Ixxxix.  7;  Josh.  v.  13-15  ;  Zech.  i.  12,  iii.  I.  See  further  Behrmann, 
Dan.,  p.  xxiii. 

*  Dan.  iv.  14,  ix.  21,  x.  13,  20. 

-  See  Enoch  Ixxi.  17,  Ixviii.  10,  and  the  six  archangels  Uriel, 
Raphael,  Reguel,  Michael,  Saragael,  and  Gabriel  in  Enoch  xx.-xxxvi. 
See  Rosh  Hashanah,  f.  56,  I  ;  Bereshith  Rabba,  c.  48 ;  Hamburger,  i. 
305-312. 

3  Berachoth,  f.  31  ;  Dan.  vi.  ii.  Comp.  Psalm  Iv.  18;  i  Kings  viii 
38-48. 

*  I  Mace.  i.  62  ;-  Dan.  i.  8  ;  2  Mace.  v.  27,  vi.  i8-vu.  42. 


THE   THEOLOGY  OF  THE  BOOK  69 

Three  Children  are  vegetarians,  like  the  Pharisees  after 
the  destruction  of  the  Second  Temple,  mentioned  in 
Baba  Bathra^  f.  60,  2. 

V.  We  have  already  noticed  the  avoidance  of  the 
sacred  name  ^*  Jehovah  "  even  in  passages  addressed  to 
Jews  (Dan.  ii.  18),  though  we  find  ^'Jehovah"  in 
2  Chron.  xxxvi.  7.  Jehovah  only  occurs  in  reference  to 
Jer.  XXV.  8-1 1,  and  in  the  prayer  of  the  ninth  chapter, 
where  we  also  find  Adonai  and  Elohim. 

Periphrases  for  God,  like  ''the  Ancient  of  Days," 
become  normal  in  Talmudic  literature. 

VI.  Again,  the  doctrine  of  the  Messiah,  like  these 
other  doctrines,  is,  as  Professor  Driver  says,  ''  taught 
with  greater  distinctness  and  in  a  more  developed  form 
than  elsewhere  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  with  features 
approximating  to,  though  not  identical  with,  those  met 
with  in  the  earlier  parts  of  the  Book  of  Enoch  (b.c.  100). 
In  one  or  two  instances  these  developments  may  have 
been  partially  moulded  by  foreign  influences.^  They 
undoubtedly  mark  a  later  phase  of  revelation  than  that 
which  is  set  before  us  in  other  books  of  the  Old 
Testament.  And  the  conclusion  indicated  by  these 
special  features  in  the  Book  is  confirmed  by  the  general 
atmosphere  which  we  breathe  throughout  it.  The  atmo- 
sphere and  tone  are  not  those  of  any  other  writings 
belonging  to  the  Jews  of  the  Exile ;  it  is  rather  that 
of  the  Maccabean  Chasidim.  How  far  the  Messianic 
Bar  Enosh  (vii.  13)  is  meant  to  be  a  person  will  be 
considered  in  the  comment  on  that  passage. 

We  shall  see  in  later  pages  that  the  supreme  value 

'  Introd.,  p.  477.  Comp.  2  Esdras  xiii.  41-45,  SLud passim;  Enoch 
xl.,  xlv.,  xlvi.,  xlix.,  and  passim;  Hamburger,  Real-EncycL,  ii.  267  ff. 
With  "  the  time  of  the  end  "  and  the  numerical  calculations  comp. 
2  Esdras  vi.  6,  7.  ..^^^^ ' '  "•'"""''*'»»^^ 


70  THE  BOOK   OF  DANIEL 

and  importance  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  rightl}^  under- 
stood, consists  in  this — that  "  it  is  the  first  attempt  at 
a  Philosoph}^,  or  rather  at  a  Theology  of  History."  ^ 
Its  main  object  was  to  teach  the  crushed  and  afQicted 
to  place  unshaken  confidence  in  God. 

^  Roszmann,  Die  Makkabaische  Erhebttng,  p.  45.     See  Wellhausen, 
Die  Pharis.  n.  d.  Sadd.,  77  ff. 


CHAPTER  VI 

PECULIARITIES  OF  THE  APOCALYPTIC  AND 
PROPHETIC  SECTION  OF  THE  BOOK 

IF  we  have  found  much  to  lead  us  to  serious  doubts 
as  to  the  authenticity  and  genuineness — i.e.,  as  to 
the  Hteral  historicity  and  the  real  author — of  the  Book 
of  Daniel  in  its  historic  section,  we  shall  find  still  more 
in  the  prophetic  section.  If  the  phenomena  already 
passed  in  review  are  more  than  enough  to  indicate  the 
impossibility  that  the  Book  could  have  been  written  by 
the  historic  Daniel,  the  phenomena  now  to  be  considered 
are  such  as  have  sufficed  to  convince  the  immense 
majority  of  learned  critics  that,  in  its  present  form, 
the  Book  did  not  appear  before  the  days  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes.^  The  probable  date  is  b.c.  164.  As  in 
the  Book  of  Enoch  xc.  15,  16,  it  contains  history 
written  under  the  form  of  prophecy. 

Leaving  minuter  examination  to  later  chapters  of 
commentary,  we  will  now  take  a  brief  survey  of  this 
unique  apocalypse. 

1.  As  regards  the  style  and  method  the  only  distant 
approach  to  it  in  the  rest  of  the  Old  Testament  is  in 
a   few  visions  of  Ezekiel  and  Zechariah,  which   differ 

*  Among  these  critics  are  Delitzsch,  Riehm,  Evvald,  Bunsen, 
Hilgenfeld,  Cornill,  Liicke,  Strack,  Schiirer,  Kuenen,  Meinhold, 
Orelli,  Joel,  Reuss,  Konig,  Kamphausen,  Cheyne,  Driver,  Briggs, 
Bevan,  Behrmann,   etc. 

71 


72  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


greatly  from  the  clear,  and  so  to  speak  classic,  style 
of  the  older  prophets.  But  in  Daniel  we  find  visions 
far  more  enigmatical,  and  far  less  full  of  passion  and 
poetry.  Indeed,  as  regards  style  and  intellectual  force, 
the  splendid  historic  scenes  of  chaps,  i.-vi.  far  sur- 
pass the  visions  of  vii.-xii.,  some  of  which  have  been 
described  as  ^'composite  logographs,"  in  which  the 
ideas  are  forcibly  juxtaposed  without  care  for  any 
coherence  in  the  symbols — as,  for  instance,  when  a 
horn  speaks  and  has  e3^es.^ 

Chap.  vii.  contains  a  vision  of  four  different  wild 
beasts  rising  from  the  sea  :  a  lion,  with  eagle-wings, 
which  afterwards  becomes  semi-human  ;  a  bear,  leaning 
on  one  side,  and  having  three  ribs  in  its  mouth  ;  a  four- 
winged,  four-headed  panther ;  and  a  still  more  terrible 
creature,  with  iron  teeth,  brazen  claws,  and  ten  horns, 
among  which  rises  a  little  horn,  which  destroyed  three 
of  the  others — it  has  man's  eyes  and  a  mouth  speaking 
proud  things. 

There  follows  an  epiphany  of  the  Ancient  of  Days, 
who  destroys  the  little  horn,  but  prolongs  for  a  time 
the  existence  of  the  other  wild  beasts.  Then  comes 
One  in  human  semblance,  who  is  brought  before  the 
Ancient  of  Days,  and  is  clothed  by  Him  with  universal 
and  eternal  power. 

We  shall  see  reasons  for  the  view  that  the  four 
beasts — in  accordance  with  the  interpretation  of  the 
vision  given  to  Daniel  himself — represent  the  Baby- 
lonian, the  Median,  the  Persian,  and  the  Greek  empires, 
issuing  in  the  separate  kingdoms  of  Alexander's 
successors ;    and    that    the    little    horn    is    Antiochus 


'  Renan,  History  of  Israel,  iv.  354.     He  adds,  "L'essence  du  genre 
c'est  le  pseudonyme,  ou  si  Ton  veut  I'apocryphisme  "  (p.  356). 


PECULIARITIES  OF  THE  APOCALYPTIC  SECTION    73 

Epiphanes,  whose  overthrow  is  to  be  followed  imme- 
diately by  the  Messianic  Kingdom.^ 

The  vision  of  the  eighth  chapter  mainly  pursues 
the  history  of  the  fourth  of  these  kingdoms.  Daniel 
sees  a  ram  standing  eastward  of  the  river-basin  of 
the  Ulai,  having  two  horns,  of  which  one  is  higher 
than  the  other.  It  butts  westward,  northward,  and 
southward,  and  seemed  irresistible,  until  a  he-goat 
from  the  West,  with  one  horn  between  its  eyes,  con- 
fronted it,  and  stamped  it  to  pieces.  After  this  its  one 
horn  broke  into  four  towards  the  four  winds  of  heaven, 
and  one  of  them  shot  forth  a  puny  horn,  which  grew 
great  towards  the  South  and  East,  and  acted  tyrannously 
against  the  Holy  People,  and  spoke  blasphemously 
against  God.  Daniel  hears  the  holy  ones  declaring 
that  its  powers  shall  only  last  two  thousand  three 
hundred  evening-mornings.  An  angel  bids  Gabriel 
to  explain  the  vision  to  Daniel ;  and  Gabriel  tells  the 
seer  that  the  ram  represents  the  Medo-Persian  and 
the  he-goat  the  Greek  Kingdom.  Its  great  horn  is 
Alexander ;  the  four  horns  are  the  kingdoms  of  his 
successors,  the  Diadochi ;  the  little  horn  is  a  king 
bold  of  vision  and  versed  in  enigmas,  whom  all  agree 
to  be  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 

In  the  ninth  chapter  we  are  told  that  Daniel  has 
been  meditating  on  the  prophecy  of  Jeremiah  that 
Jerusalem  should  be  rebuilt  after  seventy  years,  and 
as  the  seventy  years  seem  to  be  drawing  to  a  close  he 

'  Lagarde,  Gott.  Gel.  Anzieg.,  1891,  pp.  497-520,  stands  almost,  if 
not  quite,  alone  in  arguing  that  Dan.  vii.  was  not  written  till  a.d.  69, 
and  that  the  "  little  horn  "  is  meant  for  Vespasian.  The  relation  of 
the  fourth  empire  of  Dan.  vii.  to  the  iron  part  of  the  image  in  Dan.  ii. 
refutes  this  view  :  both  can  only  refer  to  the  Greek  Empire.  Josephus 
(Antt,  X.  xi.  7)  does  not  refer  to  Dan.  vii. ;  but  neither  does  he  to 
ix.-xii,,  for  reasons  already  mentioned       See  Cornill,  Ein/ett,  p.  262. 


74  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

humbles  himself  with  prayer  and  fasting.  But  Gabriel 
comes  flying  to  him  at  the  time  of  the  evening  sacrifice, 
and  explains  to  him  that  the  seventy  years  is  to  mean 
seventy  weeks  of  years — i.e.,  four  hundred  and  ninety 
years,  divided  into  three  periods  of  7  +  62  +  i.  At 
the  end  of  seven  (i.e.,  forty-nine)  years  an  anointed 
prince  will  order  the  restoration  of  Jerusalem.  The 
city  will  continue,  though  in  humiliation,  for  sixty-two 
{i.e.,  four  hundred  and  thirty-four)  years,  when  ^^an 
anointed  "  will  be  cut  off,  and  a  prince  will  destroy  it. 
During  half  a  week  (i.e.,  for  three  and  a  half  years)  he 
will  cause  the  sa.crifice  and  oblation  to  cease  ;  and  he 
will  make  a  covenant  with  m.any  for  one  week,  at  the 
end  of  which  he  will  be  cut  off. 

Here,  again,  we  shall  have  reason  to  see  that  the 
whole  prophecy  culminates  in,  and  is  mainly  concerned 
with,  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  In  fact,  it  furnishes  us 
with  a  sketch  of  his  fortunes,  which,  in  connexion  with 
the  eleventh  chapter,  tells  us  more  about  him  than  we 
learn  from  any  extant  history. 

In  the  tenth  chapter  Daniel,  after  a  fast  of  twenty- 
one  days,  sees  a  vision  of  Gabriel,  who  explains  to  him 
why  his  coming  has  been  delayed,  soothes  his  fears, 
touches  his  lips,  and  prepares  him  for  the  vision  of 
chapter  eleven.  That  chapter  is  mainly  occupied  with 
a  singularly  minute  and  circumstantial  history  of  the 
murders,  intrigues,  wars,  and  intermarriages  of  the 
Lagidae  and  Seleucidae.  So  detailed  is  it  that  in  some 
cases  the  history  has  to  be  reconstructed  out  of  it. 
This  sketch  is  followed  by  the  doings  and  final  over- 
throw of  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 

The  twelfth  chapter  is  the  picture  of  a  resurrection, 
and  of  words  of  consolation  and  exhortation  addressed 
to  Daniel. 


PECULIARITIES  OF  THE  APOCALYPTIC  SECTION    75 


Such  in  briefest  outline  are  the  contents  of  these 
chapters,  and  their  pecuHarities  are  very  marked. 
Until  the  reader  has  studied  the  more  detailed  explana- 
tion of  the  chapters  separately,  and  especially  of  the 
eleventh,  he  will  be  unable  to  estimate  the  enormous  force 
of  the  arguments  adduced  to  prove  the  impossibility  of 
such  "  prophecies  "  having  emanated  from  Babylon  and 
Susa  about  b.c.  536.  Long  before  the  astonishing  en- 
largement of  our  critical  knov/ledge  which  has  been  the 
work  of  the  last  generation — nearly  fifty  years  ago — 
the  mere  perusal  of  the  Book  as  it  stands  produced  on 
the  manly  and  honest  judgment  of  Dr.  Arnold  a  strong 
impression  of  uncertainty.  He  said  that  the  latter 
chapters  of  Daniel  would,  if  genuine,  be  a  clear  excep- 
tion to  the  canons  of  interpretation  which  he  laid  down 
in  his  Sermons  on  Prophecy,  since  ''there  can  be  no 
reasonable  spiritual  meaning  made  out  of  the  kings  of 
the  North  and  South."  ''But,"  he  adds,  "I  have  long 
thought  that  the  greater  part  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  is 
most  certainly  a  very  late  v/ork  of  the  time  of  the 
Maccabees;  and  the  pretended  prophecies  about  the 
kings  of  Grecia  and  Persia,  and  of  the  North  and  South, 
are  mere  history,  like  the  poetical  prophecies  in  Virgil 
and  elsewhere.  In  fact,  you  can  trace  distinctly  the 
date  when  it  was  written,  because  the  events  up  to 
that  date  are  given  with  historical  minuteness,  totally 
unlike  the  character  of  real  prophecy ;  and  beyond  that 
date  all  is  imaginary."  ^ 

The  Book  is  the  earliest  specimen  of  its  kind  known 
to  us.  It  inaugurated  a  new  and  important  branch  of 
Jewish  literature,  which  influenced  many  subsequent 
writers.  An  apocalypse,  so 'far  as  its  literary  form  is 
concerned,  "  claims   throughout    to   be    a  supernatural 

'  Stanley,  Life  of  Arnold,  p.  505. 


76  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

revelation  given  to  mankind  by.  the  mouth  of  those 
men  in  whose  names  the  various  writings  appear."  An 
apocalypse — such,  for  instance,  as  the  Books  of  Enoch, 
the  Assumption  of  Moses,  Baruch,  i,  2  Esdras,  and  the 
Sibylline  Oracles — is  characterised  by  its  enigmatic 
form,  which  shrouds  its  meaning  in  parables  and 
symbols.  It  indicates  persons  without  naming  them, 
and  shadows  forth  historic  events  under  animal  forms, 
or  as  operations  of  Nature.  Even  the  explanations 
which  follow,  as  in  this  Book,  are  still  mysterious  and 
indirect. 

II.  In  the  next  place  an  apocalypse  is  literary,  not 
oral.  Schiirer,  who  classes  Daniel  among  the  oldest  and 
most  original  of  pseudepigraphic  prophecies,  etc.,  rightly 
says  that  ''  the  old  prophets  in  their  teachings  and 
exhortations  addressed  themselves  directly  to  the 
people  first  and  foremost  through  their  oral  utterances  ; 
and  then,  but  only  as  subordinate  to  these,  by  written 
discourses  as  well.  But  now,  when  men  felt  them- 
selves at  any  time  compelled  by  their  religious  enthu- 
siasm to  influence  their  contemporaries,  instead  of 
directly  addressing  them  in  person  like  the  prophets 
of  old,  they  did  so  by  a  writing  purporting  to  be  the 
work  of  some  one  or  other  of  the  great  names  of  the 
past,  in  the  hope  that  in  this  way  the  effect  would  be 
all  the  surer  and  all  the  more  powerful."  ^  The  Daniel 
of  this  Book  represents  himself,  not  as  a  prophet,  but 
as  a  humble  student  of  the  prophets.  He  no  longer 
claims,  as  Isaiah  did,  to  speak  in  the  Name  of  God 
Himself  with  a  ''Thus  saith  Jehovah." 

III.  Thirdly,  it  is  impossible  not  to  notice  that 
Daniel  differs  from  all  other  prophecies  by  its  all-but- 
total  indifference  to  the  circumstances  and  surroundings 

*  Schiirer,  Hist,  of  the  Jew.  People,  iii.  24  (E.  Tr.). 


PECULIARITIES  OF  THE  APOCALYPTIC  SECTION    77 

in  the  midst  of  which  the  prediction  is  supposed  to 
have  originated.  The  Daniel  of  Babylon  and  Susa  is 
represented  as  the  writer ;  3^et  his  whole  interest  is 
concentrated,  not  in  the  events  which  immediately 
interest  the  Jews  of  Babylon  in  the  days  of  Cyrus, 
or  of  Jerusalem  under  Zerubbabel,  but  deals  with  a 
number  of  predictions  which  revolve  almost  exclusively 
about  the  reign  of  a  very  inferior  king  four  centuries 
afterwards.  And  with  this  king  the  predictions  abruptly 
stop  short,  and  are  followed  by  the  very  general 
promise  of  an  immediate  Messianic  age. 

We  may  notice  further  the  constant  use  of  round 
and  cyclic  numbers,  such  as  three  and  its  compounds 
(i.  5,  iii.  I,  vi.  7,  10,  vii.  5,  8);  four  (ii.,  vii.  6,  and 
viii.  8,  xi.  12);  seven  and  its  compounds  (iii.  19,  iv.  16,  23, 
ix.  24,  etc.).  The  apocalyptic  symbols  of  Bears,  Lions, 
Eagles,  Horns,  Wings,  etc.,  abound  in  the  contemporary 
and  later  Books  of  Enoch,  Baruch,  4  Esdras,  the 
Assumption  of  Moses,  and  the  Sibyllines,  as  well  as  in 
the  early  Christian  apocalypses,  like  that  of  Peter.  The 
authors  of  the  Sibyllines  (b.c.  140)  were  acquainted  with 
Daniel ;  the  Book  of  Enoch  breathes  exactly  the  same 
spirit  with  this  Book,  in  the  transcendentalism  which 
avoids  the  name  Jehovah  (vii.  1 3 ;  Enoch  xlvi.  i,  xlvii.  3), 
in  the  number  of  angels  (vii.  10;  Enoch  xl.  i,  Ix.  2), 
their  names,  the  title  of  ^'  watchers  "  given  to  them, 
and  their  guardianship  of  men  (Enoch  xx.  5).  The 
Judgment  and  the  Books  (vii.  9,  10,  xii.  i)  occur  again 
in  Enoch  xlvii.  3,  Ixxxi.  i,  as  in  the  Book  of  Jubilees, 
and  the  Testament  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs.^ 

*  On  the  close  resemblance  between  Daniel  and  other  apocryphal 
books  see  Behrmann,  Dan.,  pp.  37-39 ;  Dillmann,  Das  Buck  Henoch, 
For  its  relation  to  the  Book  of  Baruch  see  Schrader,  Keilinschriften, 
435  f.     Philo  does  not  allude  to  Daniel. 


CHAPTER   VII 

INTERNAL  EVIDENCE 

I.  /^"ATHER  prophets  start  from  the  ground  of  the 
^<^  present^  and  to  exigencies  of  the  present  their 
prophecies  were  primarily  directed.  It  is  true  that 
their  lofty  moral  teaching,  their  rapt  poetry,  their 
impassioned  feeling,  had  its  inestimable  value  for  all 
ages.  But  these  elements  scarcely  exist  in  the  Book 
of  Daniel.  Almost  the  whole  of  its  prophecies  bear  on 
one  short  particular  period  nearly  four  hundred  years 
after  the  supposed  epoch  of  their  delivery.  What, 
then,  is  the  phenomenon  they  present  ?  W^hereas  other 
prophets,  by  studying  the  problems  of  the  present  in 
the  light  flung  upon  them  by  the  past,  are  enabled, 
by  combining  the  present  with  the  past,  to  gain,  with 
the  aid  of  God's  Holy  Spirit,  a  vivid  glimpse  of  the 
immediate  future,  for  the  instruction  of  the  living 
generation,  the  reputed  author  of  Daniel  passes  over 
the  immediate  future  with  a  few  words,  and  spends  the 
main  part  of  his  revelations  on  a  triad  of  years  separated 
by  centuries  from  contemporary  history.  Occupied  as 
this  description  is  with  the  wars  and  negotiations 
of  empires  which  were  yet  unborn,  it  can  have  had 
little  practical  significance  for  Daniel's  fellow-exiles. 
Nor  could  these  '^  predictions  "  have  been  to  prove  the 
possibility  of  supernatural  foreknowledge,^  since,  even 

'  Any   apparently  requisite   modification   of  these  ^vords  will  be 
considered  hereafter. 

78 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  ■     79 

after  their  supposed  fulfilment,  the  interpretation  of 
them  is  open  to  the  greatest  difficulties  and  the  gravest 
doubts.  If  to  a  Bab3^1onian  exile  was  vouchsafed  a 
gift  of  prevision  so  minute  and  so  marvellous  as  enabled 
him  to  describe  the  intermarriages  of  Ptolemies  and 
Seleucidae  four  centuries  later,  surely  the  gift  must  have 
been  granted  for  some  decisive  end.  But  these  pre- 
dictions are  precisely  the  ones  which  seem  to  have 
the  smallest  significance.  We  must  say,  with  Semler, 
that  no  such  benefit  seems  likely  to  result  from  this 
predetermination  of  comparatively  unimportant  minutiae 
as  God  must  surely  intend  when  He  makes  use  of 
means  of  a  very  extraordinary  character.  It  might 
perhaps  be  said  that  the  Book  was  written,  four 
hundred  years  before  the  crisis  occurred,  to  console 
the  Jews  under  their  brief  period  of  persecution  by  the 
Seleucidae.  It  would  be  indeed  extraordinary  that  so 
curious,  distant,  and  roundabout  a  method  should  have 
been  adopted  for  an  end  which,  in  accordance  with 
the  entire  economy  of  God's  dealings  with  men  in 
revelation,  could  have  been  so  much  more  easil}^  and 
so  much  more  effectually  accomplished  in  simpler  ways. 
Further,  unless  we  accept  an  isolated  allusion  to  Daniel 
in  the  imaginary  speech  of  the  dying  Mattathias,  there 
is  no  trace  whatever  that  the  Book  had  the  smallest 
influence  in  inspiring  the  Jews  in  that  terrible  epoch. 
And  the  reference  of  Mattathias,  if  it  was  ever  made 
at  all,  may  be  to  old  tradition,  and  does  not  allude  to 
the  prophecies  about  Antiochus  and  his  fate. 

But,  as  Hengstenberg,  the  chief  supporter  of  the 
authenticity  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  well  observes,^ 
"  Prophecy  can  never  entirely  separate  itself  from  the 

1  On  Revelations^  vol.  i.,  p.  408  (E.  Tr.). 


So  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

ground  of  the  present,  to  influence  which  is  always  its 
more  immediate  object^  and  to  which  therefore  it  must 
constantly  construct  a  bridge.^  On  this  also  rests  all 
certainty  of  exposition  as  to  the  future.  And  that  the 
means  should  be  provided  for  such  a  certainty  is  a 
necessary  consequence  of  the  Divine  nature  of  prophecy. 
A  truly  Divine  prophecy  cannot  possibly  swim  in  the 
air ;  nor  can  the  Church  be  left  to  mere  guesses  in  the 
exposition  of  Scripture  which  has  been  given  to  her 
as  a  light  amid  the  darkness." 

II.  And  as  it  does  not  start  from  the  ground  of  the 
present,  so  too  the  Book  of  Daniel  reverses  the  method 
of  prophecy  with  reference  to  the  future. 

For  the  genuine  predictions  of  Scripture  advance  by 
slow  and  gradual  degrees  from  the  uncertain  and  the 
general  to  the  definite  and  the  special.  Prophecy 
marches  with  histor}^,  and  takes  a  takes  a  step  for- 
ward at  each  new  period.^  So  far  as  we  know  there  is 
not  a  single  instance  in  which  any  prophet  alludes  to, 
much  less  dwells  upon,  any  kingdom  which  had  not 
then  risen  above  the  political  horizon.^ 

In  Daniel  the  case  is  reversed  :  the  only  kingdom 
which  was  looming  into  sight  is  dismissed  with  a  few 
words,  and  the  kingdom  most  dwelt  upon  is  the  most 
distant  and  quite  the  most  insignificant  of  all,  of  the 
very  existence  of  which  neither  Daniel  nor  his  con- 
temporaries had  even  remotely  heard.'* 

III.  Then  again,   although  the  prophets,  with   their 

'  "  Dient  bei   ihnen    die    Zukunft  der  Gegenwart,   und   ist  selbst 
fortgesetzte  Gegenwart "  (Behrmann,  Dan.,  p.  xi). 

^  See  M.  de  Pressense,  Hist,  des  Trois  Prem.  Stecles,  p.  283. 

^  See  some  admirable  remarks  on  this  subject  in  Ewald,  Die  Proph. 
d.    Alt.  Bund.,   i.   23,  24;  Winer,   Reahvorterb.,    s.v.    "Propheten" 
Stahelin,  Einleit.,  §  197. 

*  Comp.  Enoch  i.  2. 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  8i 

divinely  illuminated  souls,  reached  far  beyond  intel- 
lectual sagacity  and  political  foresight,  yet  their  hints 
about  the  future  never  distantly  approach  to  detailed 
history  like  that  of  Daniel.  They  do  indeed  so  far 
lift  the  veil  of  the  Unseen  as  to  shadow  forth  the  out- 
line of  the  near  future,  but  they  do  this  only  on  general 
terms  and  on  general  principles.-^  Their  object,  as  I 
have  repeatedly  observed,  was  mainly  moral,  and  it 
was  also  confessedly  conditional,  even  when  no  hint 
is  given  of  the  implied  condition.^  Nothing  is  more 
certain  than  the  wisdom  and  beneficence  of  that  Divine 
provision  which  has  hidden  the  future  from  men's 
eyes,  and  even  taught  us  to  regard  all  prying  into  its 
minute  events  as  vulgar  and  sinful.^  Stargazing  and 
monthly  prognostication  were  rather  the  characteristics 
of  false  religion  and  unhallowed  divinations  than  of 
faithful  and  holy  souls.  Nitzsch^  most  justly  lays  it 
down  as  an  essential  condition  of  prophecy  that  it 
should  not  disturb  mavUs  relation  to  history.  Anything 
Hke  detailed  description  of  the  future  would  intoler- 
ably perplex  and  confuse  our  sense  of  human  free-will. 
It  would  drive  us  to  the  inevitable  conclusion  that  men 
are  but  puppets  moved  irresponsibly  by  the  hand  of 
inevitable  fate.  Not  one  such  prophecy,  unless  this 
be  one,  occurs  anywhere  in  the  Bible.  We  do  not 
think  that  (apart  from  Messianic  prophecies)  a  single 
instance  can  be  given  in  which  any  prophet  distinctly 
and  minutely  predicts  a  future  series  of  events  of  which 
the  fulfilment  was  not  near  at  hand.     In  the  few  cases 

•  Ewald,  Die  Proph.,  i.   27  ;    Michel  Nicolas,  Etudes  sitr  la  Bible, 
pp.  336  ff. 

"^  Comp.  Mic.  iii.  12 ;  Jer,  xxvi.  1-19 ;  Ezek.  i.  21,    Comp.  xxix.  18,  19. 
^  Deut,  xviii.  10. 

*  System  der  christlichen  Lehre,  p.  66. 

6 


82  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

when  some  event,  already  imminent,  is  predicted  appa- 
rently with  some  detail,  it  is  not  certain  whether  some 
touches — names,  for  instance — may  not  have  been  added 
by  editors  living  subsequently  to  the  occurrence  of  the 
event/  That  there  has  been  at  all  times  a  gift  of 
prescience,  whereby  the  Spirit  of  God,  '*  entering  into 
holy  souls,  has  made  them  sons  of  God  and  prophets," 
is  indisputable.  It  is  in  virtue  of  this  high  fore- 
knowledge ^  that  the  voice  of  the  Hebrew  Sibyl  has 

"  Rolled  sounding  onwards  through  a  thousand  years 
Her  deep  prophetic  bodiments." 

Even  Demosthenes,  by  virtue  of  a  statesmian's 
thoughtful  experience,  can  describe  it  as  his  office  and 
duty  *'  to  see  events  in  their  beginnings,  to  discern 
their  purport  and  tendencies  from  the  first,  and  to 
forewarn  his  countrymen  accordingly."  Yet  the  power 
of  Demosthenes  was  as  nothing  compared  with  that 
of  an  Isaiah  or  a  Nahum ;  and  we  may  safely  say  that 
the  writings  alike  of  the  Greek  orator  and  the  Hebrew 
prophets  would  have  been  comparatively  valueless  had 
they  merely  contained  anticipations  of  future  history, 
instead  of  dealing  with  truths  whose  value  is  equal 
for  all  ages — truths  and  principles  which  give  clearness 
to  the  past,  security  to  the  present,  and  guidance  to 
the  future.  Had  it  been  the  function  of  prophecy  to 
remove  the  veil  of  obscurity  v/hich  God  in  His  wisdom 
has  hung  over  the  destinies  of  men  and  kingdoms,  it 
would  never  have  attained,  as  it  has  done,  to  the  love 
and  reverence  of  mankind. 

IV.  Another  unique  and  abnormal  feature  is  found 

'  E.g.,  in  the  case  of  Josiah  (i  Kings  xiii.  2). 

^  De  Corona,  73 :  iZetv  ra  Trpdyixara  dpx^/xeva  kuI  Trpoai(r64a6ac  Kal 
irpoenretv  rots  6.W0LS, 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  83 

in  the  close  and  accurate  chronological  calculations  in 
which  the  Book  of  Daniel  abounds.  We  shall  see 
later  on  that  the  dates  of  the  Maccabean  reconsecration 
of  the  Temple  and  the  ruin  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes 
are  indicated  almost  to  the  day.  The  numbers  of 
prophecy  are  in  all  other  cases  symbolical  and  general. 
They  are  intentional  compounds  of  seven — the  sum  of 
three  and  four,  which  are  the  numbers  that  mystically 
shadow  forth  God  and  the  world — a  number  which 
even  Cicero  calls  ''  rerum  omnium  fere  modus  "  ;  and  of 
ten,  the  number  of  the  world.^  If  we  except  the  pro- 
phecy of  the  seventy  years'  captivity — which  was  a 
round  number,  and  is  in  no  respect  parallel  to  the 
periods  of  Daniel — there  is  no  other  instance  in  the 
Bible  of  a  chronological  prophecy.  We  say  no  other 
instance,  because  one  of  the  commentators  who,  in 
writing  upon  Daniel,  objects  to  the  remark  of  Nitzsch 
that  the  numbers  of  prophecy  are  mystical,  yet  observes 
on  the  one  thousand  two  hundred  and  sixty  days  of 
Rev.  xii.  that  the  number  one  thousand  two  hundred 
and  sixty,  or  three  and  a  half  years,  "  has  no  historical 
signification  whatever,  and  is  only  to  be  viewed  in  its 
relation  to  the  number  seven — viz.,  as  symbolising  the 
apparent  victory  of  the  world  over  the  Church."  ^ 

V.  Alike,  then,  in  style,  in  matter,  and  in  what  has 
been  called  by  V.  Orelli  its  ''  exoteric  "  manner, — alike 
in  its  definiteness  and  its  indefiniteness — in  the  point 
from  which  it  starts  and  the  period  at  which  it  termi- 
nates— in  its  minute  details  and  its  chronological  indica- 
tions— in  the  absence  of  the  moral  and  the  impassioned 

'  The  symbolism  of  numbers  is  carefully  and  learnedly  worked  out 
in  Bahr's  Sytnbolik:  cf,  Auberlen,  p.  133.  The  several  fulfilments  of 
the  prophesied  seventy  years'  captivity  illustrate  this. 

■^  Hcngstenberg,  On  Revelations,  p.  609. 


84  THE  BOOK   OF  DANIEL 

element,  and  in  the  sense  of  fatalism  which  it  must 
have  introduced  into  history  had  it  been  a  genuine 
prophecy, — the  Book  of  Daniel  differs  from  all  the 
other  books  which  compose  that  prophetic  canon. 
From  that  canon  it  was  rightly  and  deliberately  ex- 
cluded by  the  Jews.  Its  worth  and  dignity  can  only 
be  rationally  vindicated  or  rightly  understood  by  sup- 
posing it  to  have  been  the  work  of  an  unknown  moralist 
and  patriot  of  the  Maccabean  age. 

And  if  anything  further  were  wanting  to  complete 
the  cogency  of  the  internal  evidence  which  forces  this 
conclusion  upon  us,  it  is  amply  found  in  a  study  of 
those  books,  confessedly  apocryphal,  w^hich,  although 
far  inferior  to  the  Book  before  us,  are  yet  of  value,  and 
which  we  believe  to  have  emanated  from  the  same  era. 

They  resemble  this  Book  in  their  language,  both 
Hebrew  and  Aramaic,  as  well  as  in  certain  recurring- 
expressions  and  forms  to  be  found  in  the  Books  of 
Maccabees  and  the  Second  Book  of  Esdras  ; — in  their 
style— rhetorical  rather  than  poetical,  stately  rather 
than  ecstatic,  diffuse  rather  than  pointed,  and  wholly 
inferior  to  the  prophets  in  depth  and  power  ; — in  the  use 
of  an  apocalyptic  method,  and  the  strange  combination 
of  dreams  and  symbols  ; — in  the  insertion,  by  way  of 
embellishment,  of  speeches  and  formal  documents  which 
can  at  the  best  be  only  semi-historical ; — finally,  in  the 
whole  tone  of  thought,  especially  in  the  quite  peculiar 
doctrine  of  archangels,  of  angels  guarding  kingdoms, 
and  of  opposing  evil  spirits.  In  short,  the  Book  of 
Daniel  may  be  illustrated  by  the  Apocryphal  books  in 
every  single  particular.  In  the  adoption  of  an  illus- 
trious name — which  is  the  most  marked  characteristic 
of  this  period — it  resembles  the  additions  to  the  Book 
of  Daniel,  the  Books  of  Esdras,  the  Letters  of  Baruch 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  85 

and  Jeremiah,  and  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon.  In  the 
imaginary  and  quasi-legendary  treatment  of  history  it 
finds  a  parallel  in  Wisdom  xvi.— xix.,  and  parts  of  the 
Second  Book  of  Maccabees  and  the  Second  Book  of 
Esdras.  As  an  allusive  narrative  bearing  on  contem- 
poraneous events  under  the  guise  of  describing  the 
past,  it  is  closely  parallel  to  the  Book  of  Judith,^  while 
the  character  of  Daniel  bears  the  same  relation  to  that 
of  Joseph,  as  the  representation  of  Judith  does  to  that 
of  Jael.  As  an  ethical  development  of  a  few  scattered 
historical  data,  tending  to  the  marvellous  and  super- 
natural, but  rising  to  the  dignity  of  a  very  noble  and 
important  religious  fiction,  it  is  analogous,  though  in- 
comparably superior,  to  Bel  and  the  Dragon,  and  to  the 
stories  of  Tobit  and  Susanna.^ 

The  conclusion  is  obvious  ;  and  it  is  equally  obvious 
that,  when  w^e  suppose  the  name  of  Daniel  to  have 
been  assumed,  and  the  assumption  to  have  been  sup- 
ported by  an  antique  colouring,  we  do  not  for  a  moment 
charge  the  unknown  author — who  may  very  well  have 
been  Onias  IV. — with  any  dishonesty.  Indeed,  it 
appears  to  us  that  there  are  many  traces  in  the  Book 
— (f^covdvTa  avverolaiv — which  exonerate  the  writer  from 
any  suspicion  of  intentional  deception.  They  may  have 
been  meant  to  remove  any  tendency  to  error  in  under- 
standing the  artistic  guise  which  was  adopted  for  the 
better  and  more  forcible  inculcation  of  the  lessons  to 
be  conveyed.  That  the  stories  of  Daniel  offered  pecu- 
liar opportunities  for  this  treatment  is  shown  by  the 
apocryphal  additions  to  the  Book ;  and  that  the  practice 

'  All  these  particulars  may  be  found,  without  any  allusion  to  the 
Book  of  Daniel,  in  the  admirable  article  on  the  Apocrypha  by  Dean 
Plumptre  in  Dr.  Smith's  Did.  of  the  Bible. 

^  Ewald,  Gesch.  Isr.,  iv.  541. 


86  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

was  well  understood  even  before  the  closing  of  the 
Canon  is  sufficiently  shown  by  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes. 
The  writer  of  that  strange  and  fascinating  book,  with 
its  alternating  moods  of  cynicism  and  resignation,  merely 
adopted  the  name  of  Solomon,  and  adopted  it  with  no 
dishonourable  purpose ;  for  he  could  not  have  dreamed 
that  utterances  which  in  page  after  page  betray  to 
criticism  their  late  origin  would  really  be  identified 
with  the  words  of  the  son  of  David  a  thousand  years 
before  Christ.  This  may  now  be  regarded  as  an  in- 
disputable, and  is  indeed  a  no  longer  disputed,  result 
of  all  literary  and  philological  inquiry. 

It  is  to  Porphyry,  a  Neoplatonist  of  the  third  century 
(born  at  Tyre,  a.d.  233  ;  died  in  Rome,  a.d.  303),  that 
w^e  owe  our  ability  to  write  a  continuous  historical 
commentary  on  the  symbols  of  Daniel.  That  writer 
devoted  the  twelfth  book  of  his  ^070^  Kara  XpiaTiavcov 
to  a  proof  that  Daniel  was  not  written  till  a/ier  the 
epoch  which  it  so  minutely  described.-^  In  order  to  do 
this  he  collected  with  great  learning  and  industry  a 
history  of  the  obscure  Antiochian  epoch  from  authors 
most  of  whom  have  perished.  Of  these  authors  Jerome 
— the  most  valuable  part  of  whose  commentary  is 
derived  from  Porphyry — gives  a  formidable  list,  men- 
tioning among  others  Callinicus,  Diodorus,  Polybius, 
Posidonius,  Claudius,  Theo,  and  Andronicus.  It  is  a 
strange  fact  that  the  exposition  of  a  canonical  book 
should  have  been  mainly  rendered  possible  by  an 
avowed  opponent  of  Christianity.  It  was  the  object 
of  Porphyry  to  prove  that  the  apocalyptic  portion  of 
the  Book  was  not  a  prophecy  at  all.^     It  used  to  be  a 

'  "  Et   non    tarn    Danielem   ventitra    dixisse   quam    ilium   itarrasse 
prceterita''^  (Jer.). 

^  "Ad    intelligendas   autem    extrcmas   Danielis   partes    multiplex 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  87 

constant  taunt  against  those  who  adopt  his  critical 
conclusions  that  their  weapons  are  borrowed  from  the 
armoury  of  an  infidel.  The  objection  hardly  seems 
worth  answering.  ^^  Fas  est  et  ab  hoste  doceri."  If  the 
enemies  of  our  religion  have  sometimes  helped  us  the 
better  to  understand  our  sacred  books,  or  to  judge 
more  correctly  respecting  them,  we  should  be  grateful 
that  their  assaults  have  been  overruled  to  our  in- 
struction. The  reproach  is  wholly  beside  the  question. 
We  may  apply  to  it  the  manly  words  of  Grotius  :  "  Neque 
7ne  pudeat  consentire  PorphyriOj  quando  is  in  veram 
sententiam  incidit.''^  Moreover,  St.  Jerome  himself  could 
not  have  written  his  commentary,  as  he  himself  admits, 
without  availing  himself  of  the  aid  of  the  erudition  of 
the  heathen  philosopher,  whom  no  less  a  person  than  St. 
Augustine  called  ^^  doctissimus  philosophorum,^^  though 
unhappily  he  was  "  acerrimiis  christianorum  inimiatsy 

Graecorum  historia  necessaria  est "  (Jer.,  Prooem.  Explan.  in  Dan. 
Proph.  ad  f.).  Among  these  Greek  historians  he  mentions  eight  whom 
Porphyry  had  consulted,  and  adds,  "  Et  si  quando  cogimur  Utterarum 
saecularium  recordari  .  .  .  non  nostrae  est  voluntatis,  sed  ut  dicam, 
gravissimce  necessitatis"  We  know  Porphyry's  arguments  mainly 
through  the  commentary  of  Jerome,  who,  indeed,  derived  from 
Porphyry  the  historic  data  without  which  the  eleventh  chapter, 
among  others,  would  have  been  wholly  unintelligible. 


CHAPTER   VIII 

EVIDENCE  IN  FAVOUR   OF  THE   GENUINENESS 
UNCERTAIN  AND  INADEQUATE 

WE  have  seen  that  there  are  many  circumstances 
which  force  upon  us  the  gravest  doubts  as  to 
the  authenticity  of  the  Book  of  Daniel.  We  now  pro- 
ceed to  examine  the  evidence  urged  in  its  favour,  and 
deemed  adequate  to  refute  the  conclusion  that  in  its 
present  form  it  did  not  see  the  light  before  the  time  of 
Antiochus  IV. 

Taking  Hengstenberg  as  the  most  learned  reasoner 
in  favour  of  the  genuineness  of  Daniel,  we  will  pass  in 
review  all  the  positive  arguments  which  he  has  adduced.^ 
They  occupy  no  less  than  one  hundred  and  ten  pages 
(pp.  182-291)  of  the  English  translation  of  his  work  on 
the  genuineness  of  Daniel.  Most  of  them  are  tortuous 
specimens  of  special  pleading  inadequate  in  them- 
selves, or  refuted  by  increased  knowledge  derived  from 
the  monuments  and  from  further  inquiry.  To  these 
arguments  neither  Dr.  Pusey  nor  any  subsequent 
writer  has  made  any  material  addition.  Some  of  them 
have  been  already  answered,  and  many  of  them  are  so 
unsatisfactory  that  they  may  be  dismissed  at  once. 

I.  Such,  for  instance,  are  the  testimony  of  the  author 

*  Havernick  is  another  able  and  sincere  supporter ;  but  Droysen 
truly  says  (^Gesch.  d.  Hellenismus^  ii.  211),  "Die  Havernickschcn 
Auffassung  kann  kein  vernunftiger  Mensch  bestimmen.*' 

88 


FAVOURABLE  EVIDENCE   UNCERTAIN  89 

himself.  In  one  of  those  slovenly  treatises  which  only 
serve  to  throw  dust  in  the  eyes  of  the  ignorant  we  find 
it  stated  that,  "  although  the  name  of  Daniel  is  not 
prefixed  to  his  Book,  the  passages  in  which  he  speaks 
in  the  first  person  sufficiently  prove  that  he  was  the 
author  "  I  Such  assertions  deserve  no  answer.  If  the 
mere  assumption  of  a  name  be  a  sufficient  proof  of  the 
authorship  of  a  book,  we  are  rich  indeed  in  Jewish 
authors — and,  not  to  speak  of  others,  our  list  includes 
works  by  Adam,  Enoch,  Eldad,  Medad,  and  Elijah. 
'*  Pseudonymity,"  says  Behrmann,  '*  was  a  very  common 
characteristic  of  the  literature  of  that  day,  and  the 
conception  of  literary  property  was  alien  to  that  epoch, 
and  especially  to  the  circle  of  writings  of  this  class." 

II.  The  character  of  the  language,  as  we  have  seen 
already,  proves  nothing.  Hebrew  and  Aramaic  long 
continued  in  common  use  side  by  side  at  least  among 
the  learned,^  and  the  divergence  of  the  Aramaic  in 
Daniel  from  that  of  the  Targums  leads  to  no  definite 
result,  considering  the  late  and  uncertain  age  of  those 
v/ri  tings. 

III.  How  any  argument  can  be  founded  on  the  exact 
knowledge  of  history  displayed  by  local  colouring  we 
cannot  understand.  Were  the  knowledge  displayed 
ever  so  exact  it  would  only  prove  that  the  author  was 
a  learned  man,  which  is  obvious  already.  But  so  far 
from  any  remarkable  accuracy  being  shown  by  the 
author,  it  is,  on  the  contrary,  all  but  impossible  to 
reconcile  many  of  his  statements  with  acknowledged 
facts.  The  elaborate  and  tortuous  explanations,  the 
frequent     "  subauditur,"     the    numerous     assumptions 

'  See  Grimm,  Comment,  zum,  I.  Buck  der  Makk.,  Einleit.,  xvii.  ; 
Movers  in  Bonner  Zeitschr.,  Heft  13,  pp.  31  ff. ;  Stahelin,  Einleit., 
p.  356. 


90  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

required  to  force  the  text  into  accordance  with  the 
certain  historic  data  of  the  Babylonian  and  Persian 
empires,  tell  far  more  against  the  Book  than  for  it. 
The  methods  of  accounting  for  these  inaccuracies  are 
mostly  self-confuting,  for  they  leave  the  subject  in 
hopeless  confusion,  and  each  orthodox  commentator 
shows  how  untenable  are  the  views  of  others. 

IV.  Passing  over  other  arguments  of  Keil,  Hengsten- 
berg,  etc.,  which  have  been  either  refuted  already,  or 
which  are  too  weak  to  deserve  repetition,  we  proceed  to 
examine  one  or  two  of  a  more  serious  character.  Great 
stress,  for  instance,  is  laid  on  the  reception  of  the  Book 
into  the  Canon.  We  acknowledge  the  canonicity  of 
the  Book,  its  high  value  when  rightly  apprehended,  and 
its  rightful  acceptance  as  a  sacred  book  ;  but  this  in 
nowise  proves  its  authenticity.  The  history  of  the  Old 
Testament  Canon  is  involved  in  the  deepest  obscurity. 
The  belief  that  it  was  finally  completed  by  Ezra  and  the 
Great  Synagogue  rests  on  no  foundation ;  indeed,  it  is 
irreconcilable  with  later  historic  notices  and  other  facts 
connected  with  the  Books  of  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Esther, 
and  the  two  Books  of  Chronicles.  The  Christian 
Fathers  in  this,  as  in  some  other  cases,  implicitly 
believed  what  came  to  them  from  the  most  questionable 
sources,  and  was  mixed  up  with  mere  Jewish  fables. 
One  of  the  oldest  Talmudic  books,  the  Pirke  A  both,  is 
entirely  silent  on  the  collection  of  the  Old  Testament, 
though  in  a  vague  way  it  connects  the  Great  Synagogue 
with  the  preservation  of  the  Law.  The  earliest  mention 
of  the  legend  about  Ezra  is  in  the  Second  Book  of  Esdras 
(xiv.  29-48).  This  book  does  not  possess  the  slightest 
claim  to  authority,  as  it  was  not  completed  till  a  century 
after  the  Christian  era;  and  it  mingles  up  with  this 
very  narrative  a  number  of  particulars  thoroughly  fabu- 


FAVOURABLE  EVIDENCE   UNCERTAIN  91 

lous  and  characteristic  of  a  period  when  the  Jewish 
writers  were  always  ready  to  subordinate  history  to 
imaginative  fables.  The  account  of  the  magic  cup,  the 
forty  days  and  forty  nights'  dictation,  the  ninety  books 
of  which  seventy  were  secret  and  intended  only  for  the 
learned,  form  part  of  the  very  passage  from  which  we 
are  asked  to  believe  that  Ezra  established  our  existing 
Canon,  though  the  genuine  Book  of  Ezra  is  wholly 
silent  about  his  having  performed  any  such  inestimable 
service.  It  adds  nothing  to  the  credit  of  this  fable  that 
it  is  echoed  by  Irenaeus,  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  and 
TertuUian.^  Nor  are  there  any  external  considerations 
which  render  it  probable.  The  Talmudic  tradition  in 
the  Baba  Bathra^  which  says  (among  other  remarks 
in  a  passage  of  v«/hich  *'  the  notorious  errors  prove  the 
unreliability  of  its  testimony ")  that  the  "  men  of  the 
Great  Synagogue  wrote  the  Books  of  Ezekiel,  the  Twelve 
Minor  Prophets,  Daniel y  and  Ezra.^  It  is  evident  that, 
so  far  as  this  evidence  is  worth  anything,  it  rather  goes 
against  the  authenticity  of  Daniel  than  for  it.  The 
Pirke  Aboth  makes  Simon  the  Just  (about  e.g.  290)  a 
member  of  this  Great  Synagogue,  of  which  the  very 
existence  is  dubious."^ 

Again,  the  author  of  the  forged  letter  at  the  beginning 
of  the  Second  Book  of  Maccabees — *'  the  work  "  says 
Hengstenberg,  **  of  an  arrant  impostor"^ — attributes 
the  collection  of  certain  books  first  to  Nehemiah,  and 


1  Iren.,  Adv.  Hceres.,  iv.  25;  Clem.,  Strom,  i.  21,  §  146;  Tert.,  De 
Cult.  Foem.,  i.  3  ;  Jerome,  Adv.  Helv.,  7;  Ps.  August.,  De  Mirab.,  ii. 
32,  etc. 

■^  Baba  Bathra,  f.  136,  14  6. 

^  See  Oehler,  s.v.  "  Kanon  "  (Herzog,  Encyct.). 

*  Rau,  De  Synag.  Magna,  ii.  66. 

*  On  Daniel,  p.  195. 


92  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

then,  when  they  had  been  lost,  to  Judas  Maccabaeus 
(2  Mace.  ii.  13,  14).  The  canonicity  of  the  Old 
Testament  books  does  not  rest  on  such  evidence  as 
this,^  and  it  is  hardly  worth  while  to  pursue  it  further. 
That  the  Book  of  Daniel  was  regarded  as  authentic 
by  Josephus  is  clear ;  but  this  by  no  means  decides 
its  date  or  authorship.  It  is  one  of  the  very  few  books 
of  which  Philo  makes  no  mention  whatever. 

V.  Nor  can  the  supposed  traces  of  the  early  exist- 
ence of  the  Book  be  considered  adequate  to  prove  its 
genuineness.  With  the  most  important  of  these,  the 
story  of  Josephus  {AntL,  XI.  viii.  5)  that  the  high  priest 
Jaddua  showed  to  Alexander  the  Great  the  prophecies 
of  Daniel  respecting  himself,  we  shall  deal  later.  The 
alleged  traces  of  the  Book  in  Ecclesiasticus  are  very 
uncertain,  or  rather  wholly  questionable ;  and  the 
allusion  to  Daniel  in  i  Mace.  ii.  60  decides  nothing, 
because  there  is  nothing  to  prove  that  the  speech  of 
the  dying  Mattathias  is  authentic,  and  because  we 
know  nothing  certain  as  to  the  date  of  the  Greek 
translator  of  that  book  or  of  the  Book  of  Daniel. 
The  absence  of  all  allusion  to  the  prophecies  of  Daniel 
is,  on  the  other  hand,  a  far  more  cogent  point  against 
the  authenticity.  Whatever  be  the  date  of  the  Books 
of  Maccabees,  it  is  inconceivable  that  they  should 
offer  no  vestige  of  proof  that  Judas  and  his  brothers 
received  any  hope  or  comfort  from  such  explicit  pre- 
dictions as  Dan.  xi.,  had  the  Book  been  in  the  hands 
of  those  pious  and  noble  chiefs. 

1  "  Even  after  the  Captivity,"  says  Bishop  Westcott,  "  the  history 
of  the  Canon,  like  all  Jewish  history  up  to  the  date  of  the 
Maccabees,  is  wrapped  in  great  obscurity.  Faint  traditions  alone 
remain  to  interpret  results  which  are  found  realised  when  the  dark- 
ness is  first  cleared  away  "  {s.v.  "  Canon,"  Smith's  Diet,  of  Bible). 


FAVOURABLE  EVIDENCE   UNCERTAIN  93 

The  First  Book  of  Maccabees  cannot  be  certainly 
dated  more  than  a  century  before  Christ,  nor  have 
we  reason  to  believe  that  the  Septuagint  version  of  the 
Book  is  much  older.^ 

VI.  The  badness  of  the  Alexandrian  version,  and  the 
apocryphal  additions  to  it,  seem  to  be  rather  an  argu- 
ment for  the  late  age  and  less  established  authority 
of  the  Book  than  for  its  genuineness.^  Nor  can  we 
attach  much  weight  to  the  assertion  (though  it  is 
endorsed  by  the  high  authority  of  Bishop  Westcott) 
that  ^^  it  is  far  more  difficult  to  explain  its  composition 
in  the  Maccabean  period  than  to  meet  the  peculiarities 
which  it  exhibits  with  the  exigencies  of  the  Return." 
So  far  is  this  from  being  the  case  that,  as  we  have 
seen  already,  it  resembles  in  almost  every  particular 
the  acknowledged  productions  of  the  age  in  which  we 
believe  it  to  have  been  written.  Many  of  the  state- 
ments made  on  this  subject  by  those  who  defend  the 
authenticity  cannot  be  maintained.  Thus  Hengsten- 
berg^  remarks  that  (i)  "at  this  time  the  Messianic 
hopes  are  dead/'  and  (2)  ''  that  no  great  Hterary  work 
appeared  between  the  Restoration  from  the  Captivity 
and  the  time  of  Christ."  Now  the  facts  are  precisely 
the  reverse  in  each  instance.  For  (i)  the  little  book 
called  the  Psalms  of  Solomon,*  which  belongs  to  this 
period,  contains  the  strongest  and  clearest  Messianic  hopes^ 

'  See  Konig,  Einleit.,  §  80,  2. 

2  "  In  propheta  Daniele  Septuaginta  interpretes  multum  ab  Hebraica 
veritate  discordant"  (Jerome,  ed.  Vallarsi,  v.  646).  In  the  LXX.  are 
first  found  the  three  apocryphal  additions.  For  this  reason  the  version 
of  Theodotion  was  substituted  for  the  LXX.,  which  latter  was  only 
rediscovered  in  1772  in  a  manuscript  in  the  library  of  Cardinal  Chigi. 

^  On  the  Authenticity  of  Daniel,  pp,  159,  290  (E.  Tr.). 

•*  Psalms  of  Sol.  xvii.  36,  xviii.  8,  etc.  See  Fabric,  Cod.  Pseudep., 
i.  917-972  ;  Ewald,  Gesch.  d.  Volkes  Isr.,  iv.  244.! 


94  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

and  the  Book  of  Enoch  most  closely  resembles  Daniel 
in  its  Messianic  predictions.  Thus  it  speaks  of  the 
pre-existence  of  the  Messiah  (xlviii.  6,  Ixii.  7),  of  His 
sitting  on  a  throne  of  glory  (Iv.  4,  Ixi.  8),  and  receiving 
the  power  of  rule. 

(ii)  Still  less  can  we  attach  any  force  to  Hengsten- 
berg's  argument  that,  in  the  Maccabean  age,  the  gift  of 
prophecy  was  believed  to  have  departed  for  ever.  In- 
deed, that  is  an  argument  in  favour  of  the  pseudonymity 
of  the  Book.  For  in  the  age  at  which — for  purposes  of 
literary  form — it  is  represented  as  having  appeared  the 
spirit  of  prophecy  was  far  from  being  dead.  Ezekiel 
was  still  living,  or  had  died  but  recently.  Zechariah, 
Haggai,  and  long  afterwards  Malachi,  were  still  to  con- 
tinue the  succession  of  the  mighty  prophets  of  their 
race.  Now,  if  prediction  be  an  element  in  the  prophet's 
work,  no  prophet,  nor  all  the  prophets  together,  ever 
distantly  approached  any  such  power  of  minutely  fore- 
telling the  events  of  a  distant  future — even  the  half- 
meaningless  and  all-but-trivial  events  of  four  centuries 
later,  in  kingdoms  which  had  not  yet  thrown  their 
distant  shadows  on  the  horizon — as  that  which  Daniel 
must  have  possessed,  if  he  were  indeed  the  author  of 
this  Book.^  Yet,  as  we  have  seen,  he  never  thinks  of 
claiming  the  functions  of  the  prophets,  or  speaking  in 
the  prophet's  commanding  voice,  as  the  foreteller  of  the 
message  of  God.  On  the  contrary,  he  adopts  the  com- 
paratively feebler  and  more  entangled  methods  of  the 
literary  composers  in  an  age  when  men  saw  not  their 
tokens  and  there  was  no  prophet  more.^ 

'  Even  Auberlen  says  {Dan.,  p,  3,  E.  Tr.),  "  If  prophecy  is  any- 
where a  history  of  the  future,  it  is  here." 

^  See  Vitringa,  De  defedu  Prophetice  post  Malachice  tempora  Obss, 
Sacr.,  ii.  336. 


FAVOURABLE  EVIDENCE   UNCERTAIN  95 

We  must  postpone  a  closer  examination  of  the  ques- 
tions as  to  the  "  four  kingdoms "  intended  by  the 
writer,  and  of  his  curious  and  enigmatic  chronological 
calculations  ;  but  we  must  reject  at  once  the  monstrous 
assertion — excusable  in  the  days  of  Sir  Isaac  Newton, 
but  which  has  now  become  unwise  and  even  portentous 
— that  ''  to  reject  Daniel's  prophecies  would  be  to 
undermine  the  Christian  religion,  which  is  all  but 
founded  on  his  prophecies  respecting  Christ "  !  Happil}^ 
the  Christian  religion  is  not  built  on  such  foundations 
of  sand.  Had  it  been  so,  it  would  long  since  have  been 
swept  away  by  the  beating  rain  and  the  rushing  floods. 
Here,  again,  the  arguments  urged  by  those  who  believe 
in  the  authenticity  of  Daniel  recoil  with  tenfold  force 
upon  themselves.  Sir  Isaac  Newton's  observations  on 
the  prophecies  of  Daniel  only  show  how  little  transcen- 
dent genius  in  one  domain  of  inquiry  can  save  a  great 
thinker  from  absolute  mistakes  in  another.  In  writing 
upon  prophecy  the  great  astronomer  was  writing  on  the 
assumption  of  baseless  premisses  which  he  had  drawn 
from  stereotyped  tradition ;  and  he  was  also  writing  at 
an  epoch  when  the  elements  for  the  final  solution  of  the 
problem  had  not  as  yet  been  discovered  or  elaborated. 
It  is  as  certain  that,  had  he  been  living  now,  he  would 
have  accepted  the  conclusion  of  all  the  ablest  and  most 
candid  inquirers,  as  it  is  certain  that  Bacon,  had  he  now 
been  living,  would  have  accepted  the  Copernican  theor}^ 
It  is  absurdly  false  to  say  that  "  the  Christian  religion 
is  all  but  founded  on  Daniel's  prophecies  respecting 
Christ."  If  it  were  not  absurdly  false,  we  might  well 
ask,  How  it  came  that  neither  Christ  nor  His  Apostles 
ever  once  alluded  to  the  existence  of  any  such  argu- 
ment, or  ever  pointed  to  the  Book  of  Daniel  and  the 
prophecy  of  the  seventy  weeks  as  containing  the  least 


96  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

germ  of  evidence  in  favour  of  Christ's  mission  or  the 
Gospel  teaching  ?  No  such  argument  is  remotely 
alluded  to  till  long  afterwards  by  some  of  the  Fathers. 

But  so  far  from  finding  any  agreement  in  the  opinions 
of  the  Christian  Fathers  and  commentators  on  a  subject 
which,  in  Newton's  view,  was  so  momentous,  we  only 
find  ourselves  weltering  in  a  chaos  of  uncertainties  and 
contradictions.  Thus  Eusebius  records  the  attempt  of 
some  early  Christian  commentators  to  treat  the  last  of 
the  seventy  weeks  as  representing,  not,  like  all  the  rest, 
seven  years,  but  seventy  years,  in  order  to  bring  down 
the  prophecy  to  the  days  of  Trajan  !  Neither  Jewish 
nor  Christian  exegetes  have  ever  been  able  to  come  to 
the  least  agreement  between  themselves  or  with  one 
another  as  to  the  beginning  or  end — the  terminus  a  quo 
or  the  terminus  ad  quern — with  reference  to  which  the 
seventy  weeks  are  to  be  reckoned.  The  Christians 
naturally  made  great  efforts  to  make  the  seventy  weeks 
end  with  the  Crucifixion.  But  JuHus  Africanus  ^  (t  a.d. 
232),  beginning  with  the  twentieth  year  of  Artaxerxes 
(Neh.  ii.  1-9,  B.C.  444),  gets  only  four  hundred  and 
seventy-five  to  the  Crucifixion,  and  to  escape  the  diffi- 
culty makes  the  years  lunar  years.^ 

Hippolytus^   separates  the  last  week   from    all    the 

*  Demonstr.  Evang.,  viii. 

^  Of  the  Jews,  the  LXX.  translators  seem  to  make  the  seventy  weeks 
end  with  A.itiochus  Epiphanes  ;  but  in  Jerome's  day  they  made  the 
first  year  of  "  Darius  the  Mede  "  the  terminus  a  quo,  and  brought  down 
the  terminus  ad  qtiem  to  Hadrian's  destruction  of  the  Temple.  Saadia 
the  Gaon  and  Rashi  reckon  the  seventy  weeks  from  Nebuchadrezzar 
to  Titus,  and  make  Cyrus  the  anointed  one  of  ix.  25.  Abn  Ezra,  on  the 
other  hand,  takes  Nehemiah  for  "  the  anointed  one."  What  can  be 
based  on  such  varying  and  undemonstrable  guesses  ?  See  Behrmann, 
Dan.,  p.  xliii. 

^  Hippolytus,  Fragm.  in  Dan.  (Migne,  Patr.  Grcec,  x.). 


FAVOURABLE  EVIDENCE   UNCERTAIN  97 

rest,  and  relegates  it  to  the  days  of  Antichrist  and 
the  end  of  the  world.  Eusebius  himself  refers  *'  the 
anointed  one "  to  the  line  of  Jewish  high  priests, 
separates  the  last  week  from  the  others,  ends  it  with 
the  fourth  year  after  the  Crucifixion,  and  refers  the 
ceasing  of  the  sacrifice  (Deut.  ix.  27)  to  the  rejection 
of  Jewish  sacrifices  by  God  after  the  death  of  Christ. 
Apollinaris  makes  the  seventy  weeks  begin  with  the 
birth  of  Christ,  and  argues  that  Elijah  and  Antichrist 
were  to  appear  a.d.  490 !  None  of  these  views  found 
general  acceptance.^  Not  one  of  them  was  sanctioned 
by  Church  authority.  Every  one,  as  Jerome  says, 
argued  in  this  direction  or  that  pro  captu  ingenii  sui. 
The  climax  of  arbitrariness  is  reached  by  Keil — the  last 
prominent  defender  of  the  so-called  **  orthodoxy "  of 
criticism — when  he  makes  the  weeks  not  such  common- 
place things  as  ''earthly  chronological  weeks,"  but  Divine, 
symbolic,  and  therefore  unknown  and  unascertainable 
periods.  And  are  we  to  be  told  that  it  is  on  such 
fantastic,  self-contradictory,  and  mutually  refuting  cal- 
culations that  ''the  Christian  religion  is  all  but  founded  "  ? 
Thank  God,  the  assertion  is  entirely  wild. 

'  See  Bevan,  pp.  141-145. 


CHAPTER   IX 

EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE  AND  RECEPTION  INTO 
THE   CANON 

THE  reception  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  anywhere  into 
the  Canon  might  be  regarded  as  an  argument  in 
favour  of  its  authenticity,  if  the  case  of  the  Books  of 
Jonah  and  Ecclesiastes  did  not  sufficiently  prove  that 
canonicity,  while  it  does  constitute  a  proof  of  the  value 
and  sacred  significance  of  a  book,  has  no  weight  as  to 
its  traditional  authorship.  But  in  point  of  fact  the 
position  assigned  by  the  Jews  t;o  the  Book  of  Daniel — 
not  among  the  Prophets,  where,  had  the  Book  been 
genuine,  it  would  have  had  a  supreme  right  to  stand, 
but  only  with  the  Book  of  Esther,  among  the  latest  of 
the  Hagiographa^ — is  a  strong  argument  for  its  late 
date.  The  division  of  the  Old  Testament  into  Law, 
Prophets,  and  Hagiographa  first  occurs  in  the  Pro- 
logue to  Ecclesiasticus  (about  b.c.  131) — "  the  Law,  the 
Prophecies,  and  the  rest  of  the  books."  ^  In  spite  of 
its  peculiarities,  its  prophetic  claims  among  those  who 
accepted  it  as  genuine  were  so  strong  that  the  LXX.  and 
the  later  translations  unhesitatingly  reckon  the  author 
among  the  four  greater  prophets.     If  the  Daniel  of  the 

*  Jacob  Perez  of  Valentia  accounted  for  this  by  the  hatred  of  the 
Jews  for  Christianity  !  (Diestel,  Gesch.  d.  A.  T.,  p.  211). 

^  Comp.  Luke  xxiv.  44 ;  Acts  xxviii.  23 ;  Philo,  De  Vit.   Cont.,  3. 
See  Oehler  in  Herzog,  s.v.  "  Kanon." 

98 


RECEPTION  INTO.  THE  CANON  99 

Captivity  had  written  this -Book,  he  would  have  had  a 
far  greater  claim  to  this  position  among  the  prophets 
than  Haggai,  Malachi,  or  the  later  Zechariah.  Yet  the 
Jews  deliberately  placed  the  Book  among  the  Kethubim, 
to  the  writers  of  which  they  indeed  ascribe  the  Holy 
Spirit  {Ruach  Hakkodesh),  but  whom  they  did  not 
credit  with  the  higher  degree  of  prophetic  inspiration. 
Josephus  expresses  the  Jewish  conviction  that,  since 
the  days  of  Artaxerxes  onwards,  the  writings  which 
had  appeared  had  not  been  deemed  worthy  of  the  same 
reverence  as  those  which  had  preceded  them,  because 
there  had  occurred  no  unquestionable  succession  of 
prophets.^  The  Jews  who  thus  decided  the  true  nature 
of  the  Book  of  Daniel  must  surely  have  been  guided 
by  strong  traditional,  critical,  historical,  or  other  grounds 
for  denying  (as  they  did)  to  the  author  the  gift  of 
prophecy.  Theodoret  denounces  this  as  ''shameless 
impudence  "  {avaLaxvi^Tiav)  on  their  part ;  ^  but  may 
it  not  rather  have  been  fuller  knowledge  or  simple 
honesty  ?  At  any  rate,  on  any  other  grounds  it  would 
have  been  strange  indeed  of  the  Talmudists  to  decide 
that  the  most  minutely  predictive  of  the  prophets — if 
indeed  this  were  a  prophecy — wrote  without  the  gift 
of  prophecy.^  It  can  only  have  been  the  late  and 
suspected  appearance  of  the  Book,  and  its  marked 
phenomena,  which  led  to  its  relegation  to  the  lowest 

'  Jos.  c.  Ap.,  I.  8. 

'^  Opp.  ed.  Migne,  ii.  1260:  Et's  TOcaiTrjv  dpaiax^fTiav  rjXacrau  ws  Kal 
Tov  x(>po^  "f"^^  irpQcpTjTwu  TovTOv  aTToaxotvl^uv .  He  may  well  add,  on  his 
view  of  the  date,  el  yap  ravra  rrjs  irpocprjTeias  aWorpia,  Tiva  tt po(f)riTela.i 
TO.  tdia; 

'  Megtlla,  3,  I.  Josephus,  indeed,  regards  apocalyptic  visions  as  the 
highest  form  of  prophecy  {And.,  X.  xi.  7)  ;  but  the  great  Rabbis 
Kimchi,  Maimonides,  Joseph  Albo,  etc.,  *re  strongly  against  him 
See  Behrmann,  p.  xxxix. 


loo  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

place  in  the  Jewish  Canon.  Already  in  i  Mace.  iv.  46 
we  find  that  the  stones  of  the  demolished  pagan  altar 
are  kept  "  until  there  should  arise  a  prophet  to  show 
what  should  be  done  with  them " ;  and  in  I  Mace, 
xiv.  41  we  again  meet  the  phrase  "  until  there  should 
arise  a  faithful  prophet."  Before  this  epoch  there  is 
no  trace  of  the  existence  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  and 
not  only  so,  but  the  prophecies  of  the  post-exilic  pro- 
phets as  to  the  future  contemplate  a  wholly  different 
horizon  and  a  wholly  different  order  of  events.  Had 
Daniel  existed  before  the  Maccabean  epoch,  it  is  im- 
possible that  the  rank  of  the  Book  should  have  been 
deliberately  ignored.  The  Jewish  Rabbis  of  the  age 
in  which  it  appeared  saw,  quite  correctly,  that  it  had 
points  of  affinity  with  other  pseudepigraphic  apoca- 
lypses which  arose  in  the  same  epoch.  The  Hebrew 
scholar  Dr.  Joel  has  pointed  out  how,  amid  its  im- 
measurable superiority  to  such  a  poem  as  the  enig- 
matic Cassandra  of  the  Alexandrian  poet  Lycophron,^  it 
resembles  that  book  in  its  indirectness  of  nomenclature. 
Lycophron  is  one  of  the  pleiad  of  poets  in  the  days 
of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus  ;  but  his  writings,  like  the  Book 
before  us,  have  probably  received  interpolations  from 
later  hands.  He  never  calls  a  god  or  a  hero  by  his 
name,  but  always  describes  him  by  a  periphrasis,  just 
as  here  we  have  "  the  King  of  the  North  "  and  "  the 
King  of  the  South,"  though  the  name  "  Egypt "  slips 
in  (Dan.  xi.  8).  Thus  Hercules  is  "a  three-nights' 
lion  "  (rpteo-TTe/oo?  \ecov),  and  Alexander  the  Great  is  ^'  a 
wolf."  A  son  is  always  "  an  offshoot "  (</)/Tu//<a),  or  is 
designated  by  some  other  metaphor.     When  Lycophron 

•  It  has  been  described  as  "  ein  Versteck  fiir  Belesenheit,  und  ein 
grammatischer  Monstrum." 


RECEPTION  INTO   THE   CANON  loi 


wants  to  allude  to  Rome,  the  Greek  ^Pco/jltJ  is  used  in 
its  sense  of  "  strength."  The  name  Ptolemaios  becomes 
by  anagram  diro  /-teXtro?,  '*  from  honey  " ;  and  the  name 
Arsinoe  becomes  tov^Hpa^,  "  the  violet  of  Hera."  We 
may  find  some  resemblances  to  these  procedures  when 
we  are  considering  the  eleventh  chapter  of  Daniel.  < 

It  is  a  serious  abuse  of  argument  to  pretend,  as  is 
done  by  Hengstenberg,  by  Dr.  Pusey,  and  by  many 
of  their  feebler  followers,  that  *'  there  are  few  books 
whose  Divine  authority  is  so  fully  established  by  the 
testimony  of  the  New  Testament,  and  in  particular  by 
our  Lord  Himself,  as  the  Book  of  Daniel."  ^  It  is  to 
the  last  degree  dangerous,  irreverent,  and  unwise  to 
stake  the  Divine  authority  of  our  Lord  on  the  main- 
tenance of  those  ecclesiastical  traditions  of  which  so 
many  have  been  scattered  to  the  winds  for  ever.  Our 
Lord,  on  one  occasion,  in  the  discourse  on  the  Mount 
of  Olives,  warned  His  disciples  that,  '*  when  they  should 
see  the  abomination  of  desolation,  spoken  of  by  Daniel 
the  prophet,  standing  in  the  holy  place,  they  should 
flee  from  Jerusalem  into  the  mountain  district."  ^  There 
is  nothing  to  prove  that  He  Himself  uttered  either  the 
words  "  let  him  that  j^eadeth  understand,^'  or  even  **  spoken 
of  by  Daniel  the  prophet''  Both  of  those  may  belong 
to  the  explanatory  narrative  of  the  Evangelist,  and  the 
latter  does  not  occur  in  St.  Mark.  Further,  in  St. 
Luke  (xxi.  20)  there  is  no  specific  allusion  to  Daniel 
at  all ;  but  instead  of  it  we  find,  "  When  ye  see  Jerusalem 
being  encircled  by  armies,  then  know  that  its  desola- 
tion is  near."  We  cannot  be  certain  that  the  specific 
reference  to  Daniel  may  not  be  due  to  the  Evangelist. 


Hengstenberg,  p.  209. 
Matt.  xxiv.  15;  Markxiii. 


THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


But  without  SO  much  as  raising  these  questions,  it  is 
fully  admitted  that,  whether  exactly  in  its  present  form 
or  not,  the  Book  of  Daniel  formed  part  of  the  Canon 
in  the  days  of  Christ.  If  He  directly  refers  to  it  as 
a  book  known  to  His  hearers,  His  reference  lies  as 
wholly  outside  all  questions  of  genuineness  and  authen- 
ticity as  does  St.  Jude's  quotation  from  the  Book  of 
Enoch,  or  St.  Paul's  (possible)  allusions  to  the  Assump- 
tion of  Elijah,^  or  Christ's  own  passing  reference  to  the 
Book  of  Jonah.  Those  who  attempt  to  drag  in  these 
allusions  as  decisive  critical  dicta  transfer  them  to  a 
sphere  wholly  different  from  that  of  the  moral  applica- 
tion for  which  they  were  intended.  They  not  only 
open  vast  and  indistinct  questions  as  to  the  self-imposed 
limitations  of  our  Lord's  human  knowledge  as  part  of 
His  own  voluntary  '*  emptying  Himself  of  His  glory," 
but  they  also  do  a  deadly  disservice  to  the  most  essen- 
tial cause  of  Christianity.^  The  only  thing  which  is 
acceptable  to  the  God  of  truth  is  truth ;  and  since  He 
has  given  us  our  reason  and  our  conscience  as  lights 
which  light  every  man  who  is  born  into  the  world,  we 
must  walk  by  these  lights  in  all  questions  which  belong 
to  these  domains.  History,  literature  and  criticism,  and 
the  interpretation  of  human  language  do  belong  to  the 
domain  of  pure  reason  ;  and  we  must  not  be  bribed 
by  the  misapplication  of  hypothetical  exegesis  tp  give 
them  up  for  the  support  of  traditional  views  which 
advancing  knowledge  no  longer  suffers  us  to  maintain. 
It  may  be  true  or  not  that  our  Lord  adopted  the  title 
"  Son  of  Man  "  {Bar  Enosh)  from  the  Book  of  Daniel  ; 


•   I  Cor,  ii.  9  ;  Eph.  v.  li. 

'^  Hengstenberg's  reference  to  I  Peter  i.  10-12,  i  Thess.  ii.  3,  i  Cor. 
vi.  2,  Heb.  xi.  12,  deserve  no  further  notice. 


RECEPTION  INTO    THE   CANON  103 

but  even  if  He  did,  which  is  at  least  disputable,  that 
would  only  show,  what  we  all  already  admit,  that  in  His 
time  the  Book  was  an  acknowledged  part  of  the  Canon. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  our  Lord  and  His  Apostles  regarded 
the  Book  of  Daniel  as  containing  the  most  explicit 
prophecies  of  Himself  and  of  His  kingdom,  why  did 
they  never  appeal  or  even  allude  to  it  to  prove  that  He 
was  the  promised  Messiah  ? 

Again,  Hengstenberg  and  his  school  try  to  prove 
that  the  Book  of  Daniel  existed  before  the  Maccabean 
age,  because  Josephus  says  that  the  high  priest  Jaddua 
showed  to  Alexander  the  Great,  in  the  year  B.C.  332,  the 
prophecy  of  himself  as  the  Grecian  he-goat  in  the  Book 
of  Daniel ;  and  that  the  leniency  which  Alexander 
showed  towards  the  Jews  was  due  to  the  favourable 
impression  thus  produced.^ 

The  story,  which  is  a  beautiful  and  an  interesting 
one,  runs  as  follows  : — 

On  his  way  from  Tyre,  after  capturing  Gaza,  Alexander 
decided  to  advance  to  Jerusalem.  The  news  threv/ 
Jaddua  the  high  priest  into  an  agony  of  alarm.  He 
feared  that  the  king  was  displeased  with  the  Jews,  and 
would  inflict  severe  vengeance  upon  them.  He  ordered 
a  general  supplication  with  sacrifices,  and  was  encour- 
aged by  God  in  a  dream  to  decorate  the  city,  throw 
open  the  gates,  and  go  forth  in  procession  at  the  head 
of  priests  and  people  to  meet  the  dreaded  conqueror. 
The  procession,  so  unlike  that  of  any  other  nation, 
went  forth  as  soon  as  they  heard  that  Alexander  was  ap- 
proaching the  city.  They  met  the  king  on  the  summit 
of  Scopas,  the  watch-tower — the  height  of  Mizpah, 
from   which  the  first  glimpse  of  the  city   is  obtained. 

^  Jos.,  Antt.,  XI.  viii.  5. 


104  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

It  is  the  famous  Blanca  Guarda  of  the  Crusaders,  on 
the  summit  of  which  Richard  I.  turned  away,  and 
did  not  deem  himself  worthy  to  glance  at  the  city 
which  he  was  too  weak  to  rescue  from  the  infidel.  The 
Phoenicians  and  Chaldeans  in  Alexander's  army  promised 
themselves  that  they  would  now  be  permitted  to  plunder 
the  city  and  torment  the  high  priest  to  death.  But  it 
happened  far  otherwise.  For  when  the  king  saw  the 
white-robed  procession  approaching,  headed  by  Jaddua 
in  his  purple  and  golden  array,  and  wearing  on  his 
head  the  golden  petalon^  with  its  inscription  *'  Holiness 
to  Jehovah,"  he  advanced,  saluted  the  priest,  and 
adored  the  Divine  Name.  The  Jews  encircled  and 
saluted  him  with  unanimous  greeting,  while  the  King 
of  Syria  and  his  other  followers  fancied  that  he  must 
be  distraught.  **  How  is  it,"  asked  Parmenio,  "  that 
you,  whom  all  others  adore,  yourself  adore  the  Jewish 
high  priest  ? "  '^  I  did  not  adore  the  high  priest," 
said  Alexander,  "  but  God,  by  whose  priesthood  He  has 
been  honoured.  When  I  was  at  Dium  in  Macedonia, 
meditating  on  the  conquest  of  Asia,  I  saw  this  very 
man  in  this  same  apparel,  who  invited  me  to  march 
boldly  and  without  delay,  and  that  he  would  conduct 
me  to  the  conquest  of  the  Persians."  Then  he  took 
Jaddua  by  the  hand,  and  in  the  midst  of  the  rejoicing 
priests  entered  Jerusalem,  where  he  sacrificed  to  God.^ 
Jaddua  showed  him  the  prediction  about  himself  in  the 
Book  of  Daniel,  and  in  extreme  satisfaction  he  granted 

*  There  is  nothing  to  surprise  us  in  this  circumstance,  for  Pto- 
lemy III.  {Jos.  c.  Ap.,  II.  5)  and  Antiochus  VII.  (Sidetes,  AntL, 
XIII.  viii.  2),  Marcus  Agrippa  {id.,  XVI.  ii,  i),  and  Vitellius 
{id.,  XVIII.  V.  3)  are  said  to  have  done  the  same.  Comp.  Suet, 
'^^g-i  93  J  Tert.,  Apolog.,  6;  and  other  passages  adduced  by  Schurer, 
i.,  §  24, 


RECEPTION  INTO   THE  CANON  105 

to  the  Jews,  at  the  high  priest's  request,  all  the  petitions 
which  they  desired  of  him. 

But  this  story,  so  grateful  to  Jewish  vanity,  is  a 
transparent  fiction.  It  does  not  find  the  least  support 
from  any  other  historic  source,  and  is  evidently  one  of 
the  Jewish  Haggadoth  in  which  the  intense  national 
self-exaltation  of  that  strange  nation  delighted  to  depict 
the  homage  which  they,  and  their  national  religion, 
extorted  from  the  supernaturally  caused  dread  of  the 
greatest  heathen  potentates.  In  this  respect  it  resembles 
the  earlier  chapters  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  itself,  and 
the  numberless  stories  of  the  haughty  superiority  of 
great  Rabbis  to  kings  and  emperors  in  which  the 
Talmud  delights.  Roman  Catholic  historians,  like  Jahn 
and  Hess,  and  older  writers,  like  Prideaux,^  accept  the 
story,  even  when  they  reject  the  fable  about  Sanballat 
and  the  Temple  on  Gerizim  which  follows  it.  Stress 
is  naturally  laid  upon  it  by  apologists  like  Hengsten- 
berg;  but  an  historian  like  Grote  does  not  vouchsafe 
to  notice  it  by  a  single  word,  and  most  modern  writers 
reject  it.  The  Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells  thinks  that 
these  stories  are  *'  probably  derived  from  some  apocry- 
phal book  of  Alexandrian  growth,  in  which  chronology 
and  history  gave  way  to  romance  and  Jewish  V3.mty"'^ 
All  the  historians  except  Josephus  say  that  Alexander 
went  straight  from  Gaza  to  Egypt,  and  make  no  mention 
of  Jerusalem  or  Samaria ;  and  Alexander  was  by  no 
means  *'  adored  "  by  all  men  at  that  period  of  his  career, 
for  he  never  received  TrpoaKvurjcn^  till  after  his  conquest 
of  Persia.     Nor  can   we   account   for  the  presence  of 

'  Jahn,  Hebr.  Commonwealth,  §  71  ;  Hess,  Gesch.,  ii.  37  ;  Prideaux, 
Connections  i.  $^0&. 

2  Diet,  of  Bible,  s.v.  "  Jaddua."  See  Schurer,  i.  187;.  Van  Dale, 
Dissert,  de  LXX.  Interpr.,  68  flf. 


io6  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

**  Chaldeans  "  in  his  army  at  this  time,  for  Chaldea  was 
then  under  the  rule  of  Babylon.  Besides  which,  Daniel 
was  expressly  bidden,  as  Bleek  observes,  to  "  seal  up 
his  prophecy  till  the  time  of  the  end  "  ;  and  the  "  time 
of  the  end  "  was  certainly  not  the  era  of  Alexander, — 
not  to  mention  the  circumstance  that  Alexander,  if  the 
prophecies  were  pointed  out  to  him  at  all,  would  hardly 
have  been  content  with  the  single  verse  or  two  about 
himself,  and  would  have  been  anything  but  gratified  by 
what  immediately  follows.^ 

I  pass  over  as  meaningless  Hengstenberg's  argu- 
ments in  favour  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Book  from 
the  predominance  of  symbolism;  from  the  moderation 
of  tone  towards  Nebuchadrezzar;  from  the  political 
gifts  shown  by  the  writer ;  and  from  his  prediction  that 
the  Messianic  Kingdom  would  at  once  appear  after  the 
death  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes !  When  we  are  told 
that  these  circumstances  ''can  only  be  explained  on  the 
assumption  of  a  Babylonian  origin  " ;  that  "  they  are 
directly  opposed  to  the  spirit  of  the  Maccabean  time  "  ; 
that  the  artifice  with  which  the  writing  is  pervaded, 
supposing  it  to  be  a  pseadepigraphic  book,  "  far  surpasses 
the  powers  of  the  most  gifted  poet " ;  and  that  "  such  a 
distinct  expectation  of  the  near  advent  of  the  Messianic 
Kingdom  is  utterly  without  analogy  in  the  whole  of 
prophetic  literature," — such  arguments  can  only  be 
regarded  as  appeals  to  ignorance.  They  are  either 
assertions  which  float  in  the  air,  or  are  disproved  at 
once  alike  by  the  canonical  prophets  and  by  the  apo- 
cryphal literature  of  the  Maccabean  age.  Symbolism 
is    the    distinguishing    characteristic    of    apocalypses, 

*  This  part  of  the  story  is  a  mere  doublet  of  that  about  Cyrus  and 
the  prophecies  of  Isaiah  (Anii.,  XI.  i.  2). 


RECEPTION  INTO   THE   CANON  107 

and  is  found  in  those  of  the  late  post-exilic  period. 
The  views  of  the  Jews  about  Nebuchadrezzar  varied. 
Some  writers  were  partially  favourable  to  him,  others 
were  severe  upon  him.  It  does  not  in  the  least  follow 
that  a  writer  during  the  Antiochian  persecution,  who 
freely  adapted  traditional  or  imaginative  elements, 
should  necessarily  represent  the  old  potentates  as 
irredeemably  wicked,  even  if  he  meant  to  satirise 
Epiphanes  in  the  story  of  their  extravagances.  It  was 
necessary  for  his  purpose  to  bring  out  the  better 
features  of  their  characters,  in  order  to  show  the  con- 
viction wrought  in  them  by  Divine  interpositions.  The 
notion  that  the  Book  of  Daniel  could  only  have  been 
written  by  a  statesman  or  a  consummate  politician  is 
mere  fancy.  And,  lastly,  in  making  the  Messianic  reign 
begin  immediately  at  the  close  of  the  Seleucid  persecu- 
tion, the  writer  both  expresses  his  own  faith  and  hope, 
and  follows  the  exact  analogy  of  Isaiah  and  all  the 
other  Messianic  prophets. 

But  though  it  is  common  with  the  prophets  to  pass 
at  once  from  the  warnings  of  destruction  to  the  hopes 
of  a  Messianic  Kingdom  which  is  to  arise  immediately 
beyond  the  horizon  which  limits  their  vision,  it  is 
remarkable — and  the  consideration  tells  strongly  against 
the  authenticity  of  Daniel — that  not  one  of  them  had 
the  least  glimpse  of  the  four  successive  kingdoms  or 
of  the  four  hundred  and  ninety  years  ; — not  even  those 
prophets  who,  if  the  Book  of  Daniel  were  genuine,  must 
have  had  it  in  their  hands.  To  imagine  that  Daniel  took 
means  to  have  his  Book  left  undiscovered  for  some 
four  hundred  years,  and  then  brought  to  light  during 
the  Maccabean  struggle,  is  a  grotesque  impossibility. 
If  the  Book  existed,  it  must  have  been  known.  Yet  not 
only  is  there  no  real  trace  of  its  existence  before  B.C.  167, 


lo8  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

but  the  post-exilic  prophets  pay  no  sort  of  regard  to  its 
detailed  predictions,  and  were  evidently  unaware  that 
any  such  predictions  had  ever  been  uttered.  What 
room  is  there  for  Daniel's  four  empires  and  four 
hundred  and  ninety  years  in  such  a  prophecy  as  Zech. 
ii.  6-13  ?  The  pseudepigraphic  Daniel  possibly  took 
the  symbolism  of  four  horns  from  Zech.  i.  18,  19  ;  but 
there  is  not  the  slightest  connexion  between  Zechariah's 
symbol  and  that  of  the  pseudo-Daniel.  If  the  number 
four  in  Zechariah  be  not  a  mere  number  of  completeness 
with  reference  to  the  four  quarters  of  the  world  (comp. 
Zech.  i.  18),  the  four  horns  symbolise  either  Assyria, 
Babylonia,  Egypt,  and  Persia,  or  more  generally  the 
nations  which  had  then  scattered  Israel  (Zech.  ii.  8,  vi, 
1-8 ;  Ezek.  xxxvii.  9)  ;  so  that  the  following  promise 
does  not  even  contemplate  a  victorious  succession  of 
heathen  powers.  Again,  what  room  is  there  for  Daniel's 
four  successive  pagan  empires  in  any  natural  interpreta- 
tion of  Haggai's  '*yet  a  little  while  and  I  will  shake  all 
nations "  (Hag.  ii.  7),  and  in  the  promise  that  this 
shaking  shall  take  place  in  the  lifetime  of  Zerubbabel 
(Hag.  ii.  20-23)  ?  And  can  we  suppose  that  Malachi 
wrote  that  the  messenger  of  the  Lord  should  "  suddenly  " 
come  to  His  Temple  with  such  prophecies  as  those  of 
Daniel  before  him  ?  ^ 

But  if  it  be  thought  extraordinary  that  a  pseudepi- 
graphic prophecy  should  have  been  admitted  into  the 
Canon  at  all,  even  when  placed  low  among  the  Kethuhim^ 
and  if  it  be  argued  that  the  Jews  would  never  have 
conferred  such  an  honour  on  such  a  composition,  the 
answer  is  that  even  when  compared  with  such  fine  books 

'Mai.  iii.  I.  LXX.,  i^aicpurjs ;  Vulg.,  stattm  ;  but  it  is  rather 
"  unawares  "  (un'Sersehens), 


RECEPTION  INTO   THE   CANON  109 

as  those  of  Wisdom  and  Jesus  the  Son  of  Sirach,  the 
Book  has  a  right  to  such  a  place  by  its  intrinsic  superi- 
ority. Taken  as  a  whole  it  is  far  superior  in  moral 
and  spiritual  instructiveness  to  any  of  the  books  of  the 
Apocrypha.  It  was  profoundly  adapted  to  meet  the 
needs  of  the  age  in  which  it  originated.  It  was  in  its 
favour  that  it  was  written  partly  in  Hebrew  as  well  as 
in  Aramaic,  and  it  came  before  the  Jewish  Church  under 
the  sanction  of  a  famous  ancient  name  which  was  partly 
at  least  traditional  and  historical.  There  is  nothing 
astonishing  in  the  fact  that  in  an  age  in  which  literature 
was  rare  and  criticism  unknown  it  soon  came  to  be 
accepted  as  genuine.  Similar  phenomena  are  quite 
common  in  much  later  and  more  comparatively  learned 
ages.  One  or  two  instances  will  suffice.  Few  books 
have  exercised  a  more  powerful  influence  on  Christian 
literature  than  the  spurious  letters  of  Ignatius  and  the 
pseudo-Clementines.  They  were  accepted,  and  their 
genuineness  was  defended  for  centuries  ;  yet  in  these 
days  no  sane  critic  would  imperil  his  reputation  by 
an  attempt  to  defend  their  genuineness.  The  book  of 
the  pseudo-Dionysius  the  Areopagite  was  regarded  as 
genuine  and  authoritative  down  to  the  days  of  the 
Reformation,  and  the  author  professes  to  have  seen 
the  supernatural  darkness  of  the  Crucifixion ;  yet 
''  Dionysius  the  Areopagite  "  did  not  write  before  a.d. 
532  I  The  power  of  the  Papal  usurpation  was  mainly 
built  on  the  Forged  Decretals,  and  for  centuries  no  one 
ventured  to  question  the  genuineness  and  authenticity 
of  those  gross  forgeries,  till  Laurentius  Valla  exposed  the 
cheat  and  flung  the  tatters  of  the  Decretals  to  the  winds. 
In  the  eighteenth  century  Ireland  could  deceive  even  the 
acutest  critics  into  the  belief  that  his  paltry  Vortigern 
was  a  rediscovered  play  of  Shakespeare ;  and  a  Cornish 


THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


clergyman  wrote  a  ballad  which  even  Macaulay  took 
for  a  genuine  production  of  the  reign  of  James  II. 
Those  who  read  the  Book  of  Daniel  in  the  light  of 
Seleucid  and  Ptolemaic  history  saw  that  the  writer 
was  well  acquainted  with  the  events  of  those  days,  and 
that  his  words  were  full  of  hope,  consolation,  and 
instruction.  After  a  certain  lapse  of  time  they  were  in 
no  position  to  estimate  the  many  indications  that  by 
no  possibility  could  the  Book  have  been  written  in  the 
days  of  the  Babylonian  Exile ;  nor  had  it  yet  become 
manifest  that  all  the  detailed  knowledge  stops  short 
with  the  close  of  the  reign  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 
The  enigmatical  character  of  the  Book,  and  the  varying 
elements  of  its  calculations,  led  later  commentators 
into  the  error  that  the  fourth  beast  and  the  iron  legs 
of  the  image  stood  for  the  Roman  Empire,  so  that  they 
did  not  expect  the  Messianic  reign  at  the  close  of  the 
Greek  Empire,  which,  in  the  prediction,  it  immediately 
succeeds.-^ 

How  late  was  the  date  before  the  Jewish  Canon 
was  finally  settled  we  see  from  the  Talmudic  stories 
that  but  for  Hananiah  ben-Hizkiah,  with  the  help  of 
his  three  hundred  bottles  of  oil  burnt  in  nightly  studies, 
even  the  Book  of  Ezekiel  would  have  been  suppressed, 
as  being  contrary  to  the  Law  {Shabhath^  f  13,  2);  and 
that  but  for  the  mystic  line  of  interpretation  adopted 
by  Rabbi  Aqiba  (a.d.  120)  a  similar  fate  might  have 
befallen  the  Song  of  Songs  {Yaddayhn,  c.  iii. ;  Mish,^  5). 

There  is,  then,  the  strongest  reason  to  adopt  the 
conclusion  that  the  Book  of  Daniel  was  the  production 
of  one  of  the  Chasidim  towards  the  beginning  of  the 

'  That  the  fourth  empire  could  not  be  the  Roman  has  long  been 
seen  by  many  critics,  as  far  back  as  Grotius,  L'Empereur,  Chamier, 
J.  Voss,  Bodinus,  Becmann,  etc.  (Diestel,  Gesch.  A.  T.,  p.  523). 


RECEPTION  INTO   THE  CANON 


Maccabean  struggle,  and  that  its  immediate  object  was 
to  warn  the  Jews  against  the  apostasies  of  commenc- 
ing Hellenism.  It  was  meant  to  encourage  the  faithful, 
who  were  waging  a  fierce  battle  against  Greek  influences 
and  against  the  mighty  and  persecuting  heathen  forces 
by  which  they  were  supported.^  Although  the  writer's 
knowledge  of  history  up  to  the  time  of  Alexander  the 
Great  is  vague  and  erroneous,  and  his  knowledge  of 
the  period  which  followed  Antiochus  entirely  nebulous, 
on  the  other  hand  his  acquaintance  with  the  period  of 
Antiochus  Epiphanes  is  so  extraordinarily  precise  as 
to  furnish  our  chief  information  on  some  points  of  that 
king's  reign.  Guided  by  these  indications,  it  is  perhaps 
possible  to  fix  the  exact  year  and  month  in  which  the 
Book  saw  the  light — namely,  about  January  B.C.  164.^ 

From  Dan.  viii.  14  it  seems  that  the  author  had 
lived  till  the  cleansing  of  the  Temple  after  its  pollution 
by  the  Seleucid  King  (i  Mace.  iv.  42-58).  For  though 
the  Maccabean  uprising  is  only  called  ''  a  little  help ' 
(xi.  34),  this  is  in  comparison  with  the  splendid  future 
triumph  and  epiphany  to  which  he  looked  forward. 
It  is  sufficiently  clear  from  i  Mace.  v.  15,  16,  that  the 
Jews,  even  after  the  early  victories  of  Judas,  were  in 
evil  case,  and  that  the  nominal  adhesion  of  many 
Hellenising  Jews  to  the  national  cause  was  merely 
hypocritical  (Dan.  xi.  34). 

^  See  Hamburger,  7?^d!/-£';^cy<^/.,  s.z/.  "  Geheimlehre,"  ii.  265.  The 
"  Geheimlehre  "  (Heb.,  Stthri  T/jom A)  embraces  a  whole  region  of 
Jewish  literature,  of  which  the  Book  of  Daniel  forms  the  earliest  be- 
ginning. See  Dan.  xii.  4-9.  The  phrases  of  Dan.  vii.  22  are  common 
in  the  Zohar. 

"^  "  Plotzlich  bei  Antiochus  IV.  angekommen  hort  alle  seine  Wissen- 
schaft  auf,  so  dass  wir,  den  Kalendar  in  den  Hand,  fast  den  Tag  angeben 
konnen  wo  dies  oder  jenes  niedergeschrieben  worden  ist"  (Reuss, 
Gesch.  d.  Heil.  Schrift.,  §  464). 


ii2  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

Now  the  Temple  was  dedicated  on  December  25th, 
B.C.  165  ;  and  the  Book  appeared  before  the  death  of 
Antiochus,  which  the  writer  expected  to  happen  at  the 
end  of  the  seventy  weeks,  or,  as  he  calculated  them, 
in  June  164.  The  king  did  not  actually  die  till  the  close 
of  164  or  the  beginning  of  163  (i  Mace.  vi.  1-16).^ 


•  For  arguments  in  favour  of  this  view  see  Cornill,  Theol.  Stud, 
aus  Ostpreussett,  1889,  pp.  1-32,  and  Einleit,  p.  261.  He  reckons  twelve 
generations,  sixty-nine  "weeks,"  from  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
to  the  murder  of  the  high  priest  Onias  III. 


CHAPTER   X 

SUMMARY  AND   CONCLUSION 

THE   contents   of  the   previous    sections   may    be 
briefly  summarised. 

I.  The  objections  to  the  authenticity  and  genuineness 
of  Daniel  do  not  arise,  as  is  falsely  asserted,  from  any 
a-priori  objection  to  admit  to  the  full  the  reality  either 
of  miracles  or  of  genuine  prediction.  Hundreds  of 
critics  who  have  long  abandoned  the  attempt  to  main- 
tain the  early  date  of  Daniel  believe  both  in  miracles 
and  prophecy. 

II.  The  grounds  for  regarding  the  Book  as  a  pseud- 
epigraph  are  many  and  striking.  The  very  Book  v^rhich 
v^ould  most  stand  in  need  of  overv^helming  evidence  in 
its  favour  is  the  one  which  furnishes  the  most  decisive 
arguments  against  itself,  and  has  the  least  external 
testimony  in  its  support. 

III.  The  historical  errors  in  which  it  abounds  tell 
overwhelmingly  against  it.  There  was  no  deportation 
in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim ;  there  was  no  King 
Belshazzar ;  the  Belshazzar  son  of  Nabunaid  was  not 
a  son  of  Nebuchadrezzar;  the  names  Nebuchad/^ezzar 
and  Abed-nego  are  erroneous  in  form ;  there  was  no 
"  Darius  the  Mede  "  who  preceded  Cyrus  as  king  and 
conqueror  of  Babylon,  though  there  was  a  later  Darius, 
the  son  of  Hystaspes,  who  conquered  Babylon ;  the 
demands  and    decrees   of  Nebuchadrezzar   are   unlike 

"3  8 


114  T^HE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

anything  which  we  find  in  history,  and  show  every 
characteristic  of  the  Jewish  Haggada ;  and  the  notion 
that  a  faithful  Jew  could  become  President  of  the  Chal- 
dean Magi  is  impossible.  It  is  not  true  that  there  were 
only  two  Babylonian  kings — there  were  five :  nor 
were  there  only  four  Persian  kings — there  were  twelve. 
Xerxes  seems  to  be  confounded  alike  with  Darius 
Hystaspis  and  Darius  Codomannus  as  the  last  king 
of  Persia.  All  correct  accounts  of  the  reign,  even  of 
Antiochus  Epiphanes,  seem  to  end  about  b.c.  164,  and 
the  indications  in  vii.  11-14,  viii.  25,  xi.  40-45,  do 
not  seem  to  accord  with  the  historic  realities  of  the 
time  indicated. 

IV.  The  philological  peculiarities  of  the  Book  are 
no  less  unfavourable  to  its  genuineness.  The  Hebrew 
is  pronounced  by  the  majority  of  experts  to  be  of  a 
later  character  than  the  time  assumed  for  it.  The 
Aramaic  is  not  the  Babylonian  East-Aramaic,  but  the 
later  Palestinian  West- Aramaic.  The  word  Kasdim 
is  used  for  ^'diviners,"  whereas  at  the  period  of  the 
Exile  it  was  a  national  name.  Persian  words  and  titles 
occur  in  the  decrees  attributed  to  Nebuchadrezzar.  At 
least  three  Greek  words  occur,  of  which  one  is  certainly 
of  late  origin,  and  is  known  to  have  been  a  favourite 
instrument  with  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 

V.  There  are  no  traces  of  the  existence  of  the  Book 
before  the  second  century  b.c.,^  although  there  are 
abundant  traces  of  the  other  books — Jeremiah,  Ezekiel, 
the  Second  Isaiah — which  belong  to  the  period  of  the 
Exile.  Even  in  Ecclesiasticus,  while  Isaiah,  Jeremiah, 
Ezekiel,  and  the  twelve  Minor  Prophets  are  mentioned 


*  It  is  alluded  to  about  b.c.  140  in  the  Sibylline  Oracles  (iii.  391-416), 
and  in  i  Mace.  ii.  59,  60. 


SUMMARY  AND   CONCLUSION  115 

(Ecclus.  xlviii.  20-25,  xlix.  6-10),  not  a  syllable  is 
said  about  Daniel,  and  that  although  the  writer  erro- 
neously regards  prophecy  as  mainly  concerned  with 
prediction.  Jesus,  son  of  Sirach,  even  goes  out  of  his 
way  to  say  that  no  man  like  Joseph  had  risen  since 
Joseph's  time,  though  the  story  of  Daniel  repeatedly 
recalls  that  of  Joseph,  and  though,  if  Dan.  i.-vi.  had 
been  authentic  history,  Daniel's  work  was  far  more 
marvellous  and  decisive,  and  his  faithfulness  more 
striking  and  continuous,  than  that  of  Joseph.  The 
earliest  trace  of  the  Book  is  in  an  imaginary  speech  of 
a  book  written  about  b.c.  100  (i  Mace.  ii.  59,  60). 

VI.  The  Book  was  admitted  by  the  Jews  into  the 
Canon ;  but  so  far  from  being  placed  where,  if  genuine, 
it  would  have  had  a  right  to  stand — among  the  four 
Great  Prophets— it  does  not  even  receive  a  place  among 
the  twelve  Minor  Prophets,  such  as  is  accorded  to  the 
much  shorter  and  far  inferior  Book  of  Jonah.  It  is 
relegated  to  the  Kethitbim^  side  by  side  with  such  a 
book  as  Esther.  If  it  originated  during  the  Babylonian 
Exile,  Josephus  might  well  speak  of  its  "undeviating 
prophetic  accuracy."  ^  Yet  this  absolutely  unparalleled 
and  even  unapproached  foreteller  of  the  minute  future 
is  not  allowed  by  the  Jews  any  place  at  all  in  their 
prophetic  Canon !  In  the  LXX.  it  is  treated  with 
remarkable  freedom,  and  a  number  of  other  Haggadoth 
are  made  a  part  of  it.  It  resembles  Old  Testament 
literature  in  very  few  respects,  and  all  its  peculiarities 
are  such  as  abound  in  the  later  apocalypses  and 
Apochrypha.^     Philo,  though  he  quotes   so  frequently 

'  Jos.,  Antt,  X.  xi.  7. 

2  Ewald  {Hist,  of  Israel,  v.  208)  thinks  that  the  author  had  read 
Baruch  in  Hebrew,  because  Dan.  ix.  4-19  is  an  abbreviation  of 
Baruch  i.  15-ii.  17. 


Ii6  THE  BOOK   OF  DANIEL 

both  from  the  Prophets  and  the  Hagiographa,  does  not 
even  allude  to  the  Book  of  Daniel. 

VII.  Its  author  seems  to  accept  for  himself  the  view 
of  his  age  that  the  spirit  of  genuine  prophecy  had 
departed  for  evermore.  He  speaks  of  himself  as  a 
student  of  the  older  prophecies,  and  alludes  to  the 
Scriptures  as  an  authoritative  Canon — Hassephartm, 
^^  the  books."  His  views  and  practices  as  regards  three 
daily  prayers  towards  Jerusalem  (vi.  ii);  the  import- 
ance attached  to  Levitical  rules  about  food  (i.  8-21); 
the  expiatory  and  other  value  attached  to  alms  and 
fasting  (iv.  24,  ix.  3,  x.  3) ;  the  angelogy  involving 
even  the  names,  distinctions,  and  rival  offices  of  angels  ; 
the  form  taken  by  the  Messianic  hope ;  the  twofold 
resurrection  of  good  and  evil, — are  all  in  close  accord 
with  the  standpoint  of  the  second  century  before  Christ 
as  shown  distinctly  in  its  literature.^ 

VIII.  When  we  have  been  led  by  decisive  arguments 
to  admit  the  real  date  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  its  place 
among  the  Hagiographa  confirms  all  our  conclusions. 
The  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Hagiographa  represent, 
as  Professor  Sanday  has  pointed  out,  three  layers  or 
stages  in  the  history  of  the  collection  of  the  Canon. 
If  the  Book  of  Chronicles  was  not  accepted  among  the 
Histories  (which  were  designated  ''The  Former  Pro- 
phets "),  nor  the  Book  of  Daniel  among  the  Greater  or 
Lesser  Prophets,  the  reason  was  that,  at  the  date  when 
the  Prophets  were  formally  collected  into  a  division 
of  the  Canon,  these  books  were  not  yet  in  existence, 
or  at  any  rate  had  not  been  accepted  on  the  same  level 
with  the  other  books.^ 

'  Psalm  Ixxiv.  9;  i  Mace.  iv.  46,  ix.  27,  xiv.  4I. 

^  See  Cornill,  Einleit.^  pp.  257-260. 

3  Sanday,  Inspiration,  p.   10 1.     The  name  of  "Earlier  Prophets" 


SUMMARY  AND   CONCLUSION  117 


IX.  All  these  circumstances,  and  others  which  have 
been  mentioned,  have  come  home  to  earnest,  unpreju- 
diced, and  profoundly  learned  critics  with  so  irresistible 
a  force,  and  the  counter-arguments  which  are  adduced 
are  so  little  valid,  that  the  defenders  of  the  genuineness 
are  now  an  ever-dwindling  body,  and  many  of  them 
can  only  support  their  basis  at  all  by  the  hypothesis  of 
interpolations  or  twofold  authorship.  Thus  C.  v.  Orelli^ 
can  only  accept  a  modified  genuineness,  for  which  he 
scarcely  offers  a  single  argument ;  but  even  he  resorts 
to  the  hypothesis  of  a  late  editor  in  the  Maccabean  age 
who  put  together  the  traditions  and  general  prophecies 
of  the  real  Daniel.  He  admits  that  without  such  a  sup- 
position— by  which  it  does  not  seem  that  we  gain  much 
— the  Book  of  Daniel  is  wholly  exceptional,  and  without 
a  single  analogy  in  the  Old  Testament.  And  he  clearly 
sees  that  all  the  rays  of  the  Book  are  focussed  in  the 
struggle  against  Antiochus  as  in  their  central  point,^ 
and  that  the  best  commentary  on  the  prophetic  section 
of  the  Book  is  the  First  Book  of  Maccabees.^ 

X.  It  may  then  be  said  with  confidence  that  the 
critical  view  has  finally  won  the  day.  The  human 
mind  will  in  the  end  accept  that  theory  which  covers 

was  given  to  the  two  Books  of  Samuel,  of  Kings,  and  of  Isaiah, 
Jeremiah,  and  Ezekiel ;  and  the  twelve  Minor  Prophets  (the  latter 
regarded  as  one  book)  were  called  "The  Later  Prophets."  Cornill 
places  the  collection  of  the  Prophets  into  the  Canon  about  B.C.  250. 

^  Alttestament.  Weissagung,  pp.  513-530  (Vienna,  1882). 

^  "Alle  strahlen  des  Buches  sich  in  dieser  Epoche  als  in  ihrem 
Brennpunkte  vereinigen  "  (C.  v.  Orelli,  p.  514). 

^  Compare  the  following  passages  :  Unclean  meats,  I  Mace.  i.  62-64, 
"  Many  in  Israel  were  fully  resolved  not  to  eat  any  unclean  thing," 
etc.;  2  Mace.  vi.  18-31,  vii.  1-42.  The  decrees  of  Nebuchadrezzar 
(Dan.  iii.  4-6)  and  Darius  (Dan.  vi.  6-9)  with  the  proceedings  of 
Antiochus  (i  Mace.  i.  47-51).  Belshazzar's  profane  use  of  the 
Temple  vessels  (Dan.  v.  2)  with  i  Mace.  i.  23 ;  2  Mace.  v.  16,  etc. 


THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


the  greatest  number  of  facts,  and  harmonises  best  with 
the  sum-total  of  knowledge.  Now,  in  regard  to  the 
Book  of  Daniel,  these  conditions  appear  to  be  far  better 
satisfied  by  the  supposition  that  the  Book  was  written 
in  the  second  century  than  in  the  sixth.  The  history, 
imperfect  as  to  the  pseudepigraphic  date,  but  very  precise 
as  it  approaches  B.C.  176-164,  the  late  characteristics 
which  mark  the  language,  the  notable  silence  respect- 
ing the  Book  from  the  sixth  to  the  second  century,  and 
its  subsequent  prominence  ^and  the  place  which  it 
occupies  in  the  Kethubtm,  are  arguments  which  few 
candid  minds  can  resist.  The  critics  of  Germany,  even 
the  most  moderate,  such  as  Delitzsch,  Cornill,  Riehm, 
Strack,  C.  v.  Orelli,  Meinhold,  are  unanimous  as  to  the 
late  date  of,  at  any  rate,  the  prophetic  section  of  the 
Book ;  and  even  in  the  far  more  conservative  criticism 
of  England  there  is  no  shadow  of  doubt  on  the  subject 
left  in  the  minds  of  such  scholars  as  Driver,  Cheyne, 
Sanday,  Bevan,  and  Robertson  Smith.  Yet,  so  far 
from  detracting  from  the  value  of  the  Book,  we  add  to 
its  real  value  and  to  its  accurate  apprehension  when 
we  regard  it,  not  as  the  work  of  a  prophet  in  the  Exile, 
but  of  some  faithful  Chasid  in  the  days  of  the  Seleucid 
tyrant,  anxious  to  inspire  the  courage  and  console  the 
sufferings  of  his  countrymen.  Thus  considered,  the 
Book  presents  some  analogy  to  St.  Augustine's  City 
of  God.  It  sets  forth,  in  strong  outlines,  and  with 
magnificent  originality  and  faith,  the  contrast  between 
the  kingdoms  of  this  world  and  the  kingdoms  of  our 
God  and  of  His  Christ,  to  which  the  eternal  victory 
has  been  foreordained  from  the  foundation  of  the  world. 
In  this  respect  we  must  compare  it  with  the  Apoca- 
lypse. Antiochus  Epiphanes  was  an  anticipated  Nero 
And  just  as  the  agonies  of  the  Neronian  persecutions 


SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSION  119 

wrung  from  the  impassioned  spirit  of  St.  John  the 
Divine  those  visions  of  glory  and  that  denunciation  of 
doom,  in  order  that  the  hearts  of  Christians  in  Rome 
and  Asia  might  be  encouraged  to  the  endurance  of 
martyrdom,  and  to  the  certain  hope  that  the  irresistible 
might  of  their  weakness  would  ultimately  shake  the 
world,  so  the  folly  and  fury  of  Antiochus  led  the  holy 
and  gifted  Jew  who  wrote  the  Book  of  Daniel  to  set 
forth  a  similar  faith,  partly  in  Haggadoth,  which  may, 
to  some  extent,  have  been  drawn  from  tradition,  and 
partly  in  prophecies,  of  which  the  central  conception 
was  that  which  all  history  teaches  us — namely,  that 
"  for  every  false  word  and  unrighteous  deed,*  for 
cruelty  and  oppression,  for  lust  and  vanity,  the  price 
has  to  be  paid  at  last,  not  always  by  the  chief  offenders, 
but  paid  by  some  one.  Justice  and  truth  alone  endure 
and  live.  Injustice  and  oppression  may  be  long-lived, 
but  doomsday  comes  to  them  at  last."^  And  when 
that  doom  has  been  carried  to  its  ultimate  issues,  then 
begins  the  Kingdom  of  the  Son  of  Man,  the  reign  of 
God's  Anointed,  and  the  inheritance  of  the  earth  by 
the  Saints  of  God. 

'  Froude,  Short  Studies,  i.  17. 


PART  II 
COMMENTARY  ON  THE  HISTORIC  SECTION 


CHAPTER   I 

THE      PRELUDE 

"  His  loyalty  he  kept,  his  faith,  his  love." — Milton. 

THE  first  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  serves  as 
a  beautiful  introduction  to  the  whole,  and  strikes 
the  keynote  of  faithfulness  to  the  institutions  of  Judaism 
which  of  all  others  seemed  most  important  to  the  mind 
of  a  pious  Hebrew  in  the  days  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 
At  a  time  when  many  were  wavering,  and  many  had 
lapsed  into  open  apostasy,  the  writer  wished  to  set 
before  his  countrymen  in  the  most  winning  and  vivid 
manner  the  nobleness  and  the  reward  of  obeying  God 
rather  than  man. 

He  had  read  in  2  Kings  xxiv.  i,  2,  that  Jehoiakim 
had  been  a  vassal  of  Nebuchadrezzar  for  three  years, 
which  were  not,  however,  the  first  three  years  of  his 
reign,  and  then  had  rebelled,  and  been  subdued  by 
''bands  of  the  Chaldeans"  and  their  allies.  In 
2  Chron.  xxxvi.  6  he  read  that  Nebuchadrezzar  had 
"  bound  Jehoiakim  in  fetters  to  carry  him  to  Babylon."  ^ 
Combining  these  two  passages,  he  seems  to  have 
inferred,  in  the  absence  of  more  accurate  historical 
indications,  that  the  Chaldeans  had  besieged  and  cap- 
tured Jerusalem  in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim.  That 
the  date  is  erroneous  there  can  hardly  be  a  question, 

*  Comp.  Jer.  xxii.  i8,  19,  xxxvi.  30. 
123 


1^4  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

for,  as  already  stated/  neither  Jeremiah,  the  con- 
temporary of  Jehoiakim,  nor  the  Book  of  Kings,  nor 
any  other  authority,  knows  anything  of  any  siege  of 
Jerusalem  by  the  Babylonian  King  in  the  third  year  of 
Jehoiakim.  The  Chronicler,  a  very  late  writer,  seems 
to  have  heard  some  tradition  that  Jehoiakim  had  been 
taken  captive,  but  he  does  not  date  this  capture ;  and 
in  Jehoiakim's  third  year  the  king  was  a  vassal,  not 
of  Babylon,  but  of  Egypt.  Nabopolassar,  not  Nebu- 
chadrezzar, was  then  King  of  Babylon.  It  was  not  till 
the  following  year  (b.c.  605),  when  Nebuchadrezzar, 
acting  as  his  father's  general,  had  defeated  Egypt  at 
the  Battle  of  Carchemish,  that  any  siege  of  Jerusalem 
would  have  been  possible.  Nor  did  Nebuchadrezzar 
advance  against  the  Holy  City  even  after  the  Battle 
of  Carchemish,  but  dashed  home  across  the  desert  to 
secure  the  crown  of  Babylon  on  hearing  the  news  of 
his  father's  death.  The  only  two  considerable  Baby- 
lonian deportations  of  which  we  know  were  apparently 
in  the  eighth  and  nineteenth  years  of  Nebuchadrezzar's 
reign.  In  the  former  Jehoiachin  was  carried  captive 
with  ten  thousand  citizens  (2  Kings  xxiv.  14-16;  Jer. 
xxvii.  20) ;  in  the  latter  Zedekiah  was  slain,  and  eight 
hundred  and  thirty-two  persons  carried  to  Babylon  (Jer. 
lii.  29  ;  2  Kings  xxv.  ii).^ 

There  seems  then  to  be,  on  the  very  threshold,  every 
indication  of  an  historic  inaccuracy  such  as  could  not 
have  been  committed  if  the  historic  Daniel  had  been 
the  true  author  of  this  Book ;  and  we  are  able,  with 

^  See  supra,  p.  45. 

'  Jeremiah  (lii.  28-30)  mentions  three  deportations,  in  the  seventh, 
eighteenth,  and  twenty-third  year  of  Nebuchadrezzar ;  but  there  are 
great  difficulties  about  the  historic  verification,  and  the  paragraph 
(which  is  of  doubtful  genuineness)  is  omitted  by  the  LXX. 


THE  PRELUDE  125 


perfect  clearness,  to  point  to  the  passages  by  which  the 
Maccabean  writer  was  misled  into  a  mistaken  inference.-^ 
To  him,  however,  as  to  all  Jewish  writers,  a  mere 
variation  in  a  date  would  have  been  regarded  as  a 
matter  of  the  utmost  insignificance.  It  in  no  way 
concerned  the  high  purpose  which  he  had  in  view,  or 
weakened  the  force  of  his  moral  fiction.  Nor  does  it 
in  the  smallest  degree  diminish  from  the  instructiveness 
of  the  lessons  which  he  has  to  teach  to  all  men  for  all 
time.  A  fiction  which  is  true  to  human  experience 
may  be  as  rich  in  spiritual  meaning  as  a  literal  history. 
Do  we  degrade  the  majesty  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  if  we 
regard  it  as  a  Haggada  any  more  than  we  degrade  the 
story  of  the  Prodigal  Son  when  we  describe  it  as  a 
Parable  ? 

The  writer  proceeds  to  tell  us  that,  after  the  siege, 
Nebuchadrezzar — whom  the  historic  Daniel  could  never 

'  The  manner  in  which  the  maintainers  of  the  genuineness  get  over 
this  difficulty  is  surely  an  instance  of  such  special  pleading  as  can 
convince  no  unbiassed  inquirer.  They  conjecture  (i)  that  Nebu- 
chadrezzar had  been  associated  with  his  father,  and  received  the 
title  of  king  before  he  really  became  king;  (2)  that  by  ^^ came  to 
Jerusalem  and  besieged  it  "  is  meant  '■^  set  out  towards  Jerusalem,  so 
that  (ultimately)  he  besieged  it  " ;  (3)  and  that  a  vague  and  undated 
allusion  in  the  Book  of  Chronicles,  and  a  vague,  unsupported,  and 
evidently  erroneous  assertion  in  Berossus — quoted  by  Josephus, 
Antt.,  X.  xi.  I ;  c.  Ap.,  I.  19,  who  lived  some  two  and  a  half  centuries 
after  these  events,  and  who  does  not  mention  any  siege  of  Jerusalem — 
can  be  so  interpreted  as  to  outweigh  the  fact  that  neither  con- 
temporary histories  nor  contemporary  records  know  anything  of  this 
supposed  deportation.  Jeremiah  (xxv.  i)  says  correctly  that  "  the 
fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  "  was  "  the  first  year  of  Nebuchadrezzar  "  ; 
and  had  Jerusalem  been  already  captured  and  plundered,  it  is 
impossible  that  he  should  not  have  alluded  to  the  fact  in  that  chapter. 
An  older  subterfuge  for  "  explaining  "  the  error  is  that  of  Saadia  the 
Gaon,  Abn  Ezra,  Rashi,  etc.,  who  interpret  "the  third  year  of  Jehoia- 
kim "  to  mean  "  the  third  year  after  his  rebellion  from  Nebuchadrezzar," 
which  is  not  only  impossible  in  itself,  but  also  contradicts  Dan.  ii.  i. 


126  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

have  called  by  the  erroneous  name  Nebuchadnezzar — 
took  Jehoiakim  (for  this  seems  to  be  implied),  with  some 
of  the  sacred  vessels  of  the  Temple  (comp.  v.  2,  3), 
into  the  land  of  Shinar/  to  the  house  of  his  god."  This 
god,  as  we  learn  from  Babylonian  inscriptions,  was 
Bel  or  Bel-merodach,  in  whose  temple,  built  by 
Nebuchadrezzar,  was  also  "the  treasure-house  of  his 
kingdom."  ^ 

Among  the  captives  were  certain  ''  of  the  king's  seed, 
and  of  the  princes  "  {Parthemtm)}  They  were  chosen 
from  among  such  boys  as  were  pre-eminent  for  their 
beauty  and  intelligence,  and  the  intention  was  to  train 
them  as  pages  in  the  royal  service,  and  also  in  such 
a  knowledge  of  the  Chaldean  language  and  literature 
as  should  enable  them  to  take  their  places  in  the  learned 
caste  of  priestly  diviners.  Their  home  was  in  the  vast 
palace  of  the  Babylonian  King,  of  which  the  ruins  are 
now  called  Kasr.  Here  they  may  have  seen  the  hap- 
less Jehoiachin  still  languishing  in  his  long  captivity. 

They  are  called  "  children,"  and  the  word,  together 
with  the  context,  seems  to  imply  that  they  were  boys 
of  the  age  of  from  twelve  to  fourteen.  The  king  per- 
sonally handed  them  over  to  the  care  of  Ashpenaz,^  the 

1  Shinar  is  an  archaism,  supposed  by  Schrader  to  be  a  corruption  of 
Sumir,  or  Northern  Chaldea  {Keilinschr.,  p.  34)  ;  but  see  Hommel, 
Gesch.  Bab.  u.  Assyr.,  220;  F.  Delitzsch,  Assyr.  Gram.,  115.  The 
more  common  name  in  the  exilic  period  was  Babel  (Jer.  li.  9,  etc.) 
or  Eretz  Kasdim  (Ezek.  xii.  13).  • 

-On  this  god — Marduk  or  Maruduk  (Jer.  1.  2)— comp.  2  Chron. 
xxxvi.  7.  See  Schrader,  K.  A.  T.,  pp.  273,  276 ;  and  Riehm,  Hand- 
worterb.,  ii.  982. 

'  This  seems  to  be  a  Persian  word,  fraiama,  "  first."  It  is  only 
found  in  Esther.  Josephus  says  that  the  four  boys  were  connected 
with  Zedekiah  (An/t,  X.  x.  i).     Comp.  Jer.  xli.  I. 

*  Dan.  i.  3  ;  LXX.,  'k^uabpL  The  name  is  of  quite  uncertain  deriva- 
tion.    Lenormant  connects    it  with  Abai-Istar,  "astronomer   of  the 


THE  PRELUDE  127 


Rabsaris,  or  "master  of  the  eunuchs,"  who  held  the 
position  of  lord  high  chamberlain.^  It  is  probably 
implied  that  the  boys  were  themselves  made  eunuchs, 
for  the  incident  seems  to  be  based  on  the  rebuke  given 
by  Isaiah  to  the  vain  ostentation  of  Hezekiah  in  showing 
the  treasures  of  his  temple  and  palace  to  Merodach- 
baladan  :  ''  Behold  the  days  come,  that  all  that  is  in 
thine  house  .  .  .  shall  be  carried  to  Babylon  :  nothing 
shall  be  left,  saith  the  Lord.  And  of  thy  sons  that  shall 
issue  from  thee,  which  thou  shalt  beget,  shall  they  take 
away ;  and  they  shall  be  eunuchs  in  the  palace  of  the 
KingofBabylon."2 

They  were  to  be  trained  in  the  learning  (lit.  '*  the 
book  ")  and  language  of  Chaldea  for  three  years  ;  at  the 
end  of  which  period  they  were  to  be  admitted  into  the 
king's  presence,  that  he  might  see  how  they  looked 
and  what  progress  they  had  made.  During  those  three 
years  he  provided  them  with  a  daily  maintenance  of 
food  and  wine  from  his  table.  Those  who  were  thus 
maintained  in  Eastern  courts  were  to  be  counted  by 
hundreds,  and  even  by  thousands,  and  their  position 
was  often  supremely  wretched  and  degraded,  as  it  still 
is  in  such   Eastern  courts.     The  wine  was   probably 

goddess  Istar  "  {La  Divination,  p.  182).  Hitzig  sees  in  this  strange 
rendering  Abiesdri  the  meaning  "eunuch."  A  eunuch  could  have  no 
son  to  help  him,  so  that  his  father  is  his  help  (^ezer).  Ephraem 
Syrus,  in  his  Commentary,  preserves  both  names  (Schleusner,  Thi- 
saurus,  s.v.  'A^Ua-ep).  We  find  the  name  Ash^enaz  in  Gen,  x.  3. 
Theodot.  has  ^Aarpavi^.  Among  other  guesses  Lenormant  makes 
Ashpenaz  =  Assa-ibni-zir.  Dr.  Joel  {Notizen  zum  Buche  Daniel,  p.  17) 
says  that  since  the  Vulgate  reads  Abriesri,  "  ob  nicht  der  Wort  von 
rechts  zu  links  gelesen  musste  ?  " 

'  Called  in  i.  7-11  the  Sar-hassarisim  (comp.  Jer.  xxxix.  3;  Gen. 
xxxvii.  36,  marg.;  2  Kings  xviii.  17;  Esther  ii.  3).  This  officer  novf 
bears  the  title  of  Gyzlar  Agha. 

^  Isa.  xxxix.  6,  7. 


128  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


imported.  The  food  consisted  of  meat,  game,  fish,  joints, 
and  wheaten  bread.  The  word  used  for  "provision" 
is  interesting.  It  is  path-bag,  and  seems  to  be  a  trans- 
literation, or  echo  of  a  Persian  word,  paiibaga  (Greek 
TTOTt^affc?),  a  name  apphed  by  the  historian  Deinon 
(B.C.  340)  to  barley  bread  and  '^  mixed  wine  in  a  golden 
egg  from  which  the  king  drinks."  ^ 

But  among  these  captives  were  four  young  Jews 
named  Daniel,  Hananiah,  Mishael,  and  Azariah. 

Their  very  names  were  a  witness  not  only  to  their 
nationality,  but  to  their  religion.  Daniel  means  ''  God 
is  my  judge";  Hananiah,  ''Jehovah  is  gracious"; 
Mishael  (perhaps),  "  who  is  equal  to  God  ?  "  ^  Azariah, 
''  God  is  a  helper." 

It  is  hardly  likely  that  the  Chaldeans  would  have 
tolerated  the  use  of  such  names  among  their  young 
pupils,  since  every  repetition  of  them  would  have 
sounded  like  a  challenge  to  the  supremacy  of  Bel, 
Merodach,  and  Nebo.  It  was  a  common  thing  to 
change  names  in  heathen  courts,  as  the  name  of  Joseph 

'  Athen.,  Deipnos,  xi.  583.  See  Bevan,  p.  60;  Max  Muller  in 
Pusey,  p.  565.  How  Professor  Fuller  can  urge  the  presence  of  these 
Persian  words  in  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  Daniel  {Speaker's  Com- 
mentary, p.  250)  I  cannot  understand.  For  Daniel  does  not  seem  to 
have  survived  beyond  the  third  year  of  the  Persian  dominion,  and  it 
is  extremely  difficult  to  suppose  that  all  these  Persian  words,  includ- 
ing titles  of  Nebuchadrezzar's  officials,  were  already  current  among 
the  Babylonians.  On  the  other  hand,  Babylonian  words  seem  to  be 
rare,  though  Daniel  is  represented  as  living  nearly  the  whole  of  a 
long  life  in  Babylon.  There  is  no  validity  in  the  argument  that  these 
words  could  not  have  been  known  in  the  days  of  the  Maccabees, 
"for  half  of  them  are  common  in  Syria,  though  the  oldest  extant 
Syriac  writers  are  later  by  three  centuries  than  the  time  of  the  Mac- 
cabees" (Bevan,  p.  41). 

2  The  name  Daniel  occurs  among  Ezra's  contemporaries  in  Ezra 
viii.  2  ;  Neh.  x.  7,  and  the  other  names  in  Neh.  viii.  4,  x.  3,  24  j 
I  Esdras  ix.  44. 


THE  PRELUDE  129 


had  been  changed  by  the  Egyptians  to  Zaphnath- 
paaneah  (Gen.  xli.  45),  and  the  Assyrians  changed  the 
name  of  Psammetichus  II.  into  Nebo-serib-ani^  *'  Nebo 
save  me."  They  therefore  made  the  names  of  the  boys 
echo  the  names  of  the  Babylonian  deities.  Instead  of 
"  God  is  my  judge,"  Daniel  was  called  Belteshazzar, 
"  protect  Thou  his  life."  ^  Perhaps  the  prayer  shows 
the  tender  regard  in  which  he  was  held  by  Ashpenaz. 
Hananiah  was  called  Shadrach,  perhaps  Shudur-aku, 
^'  command  of  Aku,"  the  moon-deity ;  Mishael  was 
called  Meshach,  a  name  which  we  cannot  interpret ;  ^ 
and  Azariah,  instead  of  ''  God  is  a  help,"  was  called 
Abed-nego,  a  mistaken  form  for  Abed-nebo,  or  ''servant 
of  Nebo."^  Even  in  this  slight  incident  there  may  be 
an  allusion  to  Maccabean  days.  It  appears  that  in  that 
epoch  the  apostate  Hellenising  Jews  were  fond  of 
changing  their  names  into  Gentile  names,  which  had 
a  somewhat  similar  sound.  Thus  Joshua  was  called 
"Jason,"  and  Onias  '*  Menelaus."  *     This  was  done  as 

'  Balatsu-utsur.  The  name  in  this  form  had  nothing  to  do  with  Bel, 
as  the  writer  of  Daniel  seems  to  have  supposed  (Dan,  iv.  5),  nor  yet 
with  Beltis,  the  wife  of  Bel.  See  supra,  p.  47.  Comp.  the  names 
Nabusarutsur,  Sinsarutsur,  Assursarutsur.  Also  comp.  Inscr.  Semtt., 
ii.  38,  etc.  Pseudo-Epiphanius  says  that  Nebuchadrezzar  meant 
Daniel  to  be  co-heir  with  his  son  Belshazzar. 

-  F.  Delitzsch  calls  Meshach  vox  hybrida.  Neither  "  Shadrach  " 
nor  "  Meshach  "  occurs  on  the  monuments.  "  That  the  imposition  of 
names  is  a  symbol  of  mastership  over  slaves  is  plain  "  (S.  Chrys., 
Opp.,  iii.  21 ;  Pusey,  p.  16).  Comp.  2  Kings  xxiii.  34  (Egyptians)  ; 
xxiv.  17  (Babylonians)  ;  Ezra  v.  14,  Esther  ii.  7  (Persians). 

^  Comp.  Obadiah,  Abdiel,  Abdallah,  etc.  Schrader  says,  p.  429: 
"  The  supposition  that  Nebo  was  altered  to  Nego,  out  of  a  con- 
tumelious desire  (which  Jews  often  displayed)  to  alter,  avoid,  and 
insult  the  names  of  idols,  is  out  of  place,  since  the  other  names  are 
not  altered." 

■*  Jos.,  Antt.,  XII.  V.  I  ;  Derenbourg,  Palestine,  p.  34;  Ewald,  Hist., 
V.  294  (E.  Tr.) ;  Munk,  Palestine,  p.  495,  etc. 

9 


I30  THE  BOOK   OF  DANIEL 


part  of  the  plan  of  Antiochus  to  force  upon  Palestine 
the  Greek  language.  So  far  the  writer  may  have 
thought  the  practice  a  harmless  one,  even  though  im- 
posed by  heathen  potentates.  Such  certainly  was  the 
view  of  the  later  Jews,  even  of  the  strictest  sect  of  the 
Pharisees.  Not  only  did  Saul  freely  adopt  the  name 
of  Paul,  but  Silas  felt  no  scruple  in  being  called  by  the 
name  Sylvanus,  though  that  was  the  name  of  a  heathen 
deity. 

It  was  far  otherwise  with  acquiescence  in  the  eating 
of  heathen  meats,  which,  in  the  days  of  the  Maccabees, 
was  forced  upon  many  of  the  Jews,  and  which,  since 
the  institution  or  reinstitution  of  Levitism  after  the 
return  from  the  Exile,  had  come  to  be  regarded  as  a 
deadly  sin.  It  was  during  the  Exile  that  such  feelings 
had  acquired  fresh  intensity.  At  first  they  do  not 
seem  to  have  prevailed.  Jehoiachin  was  a  hero  among 
the  Jews.  They  remembered  him  with  intense  love 
and  pity,  and  it  does  not  seem  to  have  been  regarded 
as  any  stain  upon  his  memory  that,  for  years  together, 
he  had,  almost  in  the  words  of  Dan.  i.  5,  received  a 
daily  allowance  from  the  table  of  the  King  of  Babylon.^ 

In  the  days  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  the  ordinary 
feeling  on  this  subject  was  very  different,  for  the 
religion  and  nationality  of  the  Jews  were  at  stake. 
Hence  we  read :  ''  Howbeit  many  in  Israel  were  fully 
resolved  and  confirmed  in  themselves  not  to  eat  any 
unclean  thing.  Wherefore  they  chose  rather  to  die, 
that  they  might  not  be  defiled  with  meats,  that  they  might 
not  profane  the  holy  covenant :  so  then  they  died."  ^ 

'  See  Ewald,  Gesch.  Isr.,  vi.  654.  "They  shall  eat  unclean  things 
in  Assyria"  (Hosea  ix.  3).  "The  children  of  Israel  shall  eat  their 
defiled  bread  among  the  Gentiles"  (Ezek.  iv.  13,  14). 

*  I  Mace.  i.  62,  63. 


THE  PRELUDE 


And  in  the  Second  Book  of  Maccabees  we  are  told 
that  on  the  king's  birthday  Jews  "were  constrained 
by  bitter  constraint  to  eat  of  the  sacrifices,"  and  that 
Eleazar,  one  of  the  principal  scribes,  an  aged  and 
noble-looking  man,  preferred  rather  to  be  tortured  to 
death,  ''leaving  his  death  for  an  example  of  noble 
courage,  and  a  memorial  of  value,  not  only  unto  young 
men,  but  unto  all  his  nation."  ^  In  the  following  chapter 
is  the  celebrated  story  of  the  constancy  and  cruel  death 
of  seven  brethren  and  their  mother,  when  they  pre- 
ferred martyrdom  to  tasting  swine's  flesh.  The  brave 
Judas  Maccabaeus,  with  some  nine  companions,  with- 
drew himself  into  the  wilderness,  and  *'  lived  in  the 
mountains  after  the  manner  of  beasts  with  his  company, 
who  fed  on  herbs  continually,  lest  they  should  be 
partakers  of  the  pollution."  The  tone  and  object  of 
these  narratives  are  precisely  the  same  as  the  tone  and 
object  of  the  stories  in  the  Book  of  Daniel ;  and  we 
can  well  imagine  how  the  heroism  of  resistance  would 
be  encouraged  in  every  Jew  who  read  those  narratives 
or  traditions  of  former  days  of  persecution  and  difficulty. 
*'  This  Book,"  says  Ewaid,  "  fell  like  a  glowing  spark 
from  a  clear  heaven  upon  a  surface  which  was  already 
intensely  heated  far  and  wide,  and  waiting  to  burst 
into  flames."^ 

It  may  be  doubtful  whether  such  views  as  to  cere- 
monial defilement  were  already  developed  at   the  be- 

'  2  Mace.  vi.  18-31.  Comp.  the  LXX.  addition  to  Esther  iv.  14, 
V.  4,  where  she  is  made  to  plead  before  God  that  she  had  not  tasted 
of  the  table  of  Haman  or  of  the  king's  banquet.  So  Judith  takes 
"clean"  bread  with  her  into  the  camp  of  Holofernes  (Judith  x.  5), 
and  Judas  and  his  followers  live  on  herbs  in  the  desert  (2  Mace,  v.  27). 
The  Mishnah  even  forbids  to  take  the  bread,  oil,  or  milk  of  the 
heathen. 

2  Prophets  of  the  O,  T.,  p.  184  (E.  Tr.). 


132 


THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


ginning  of  the  Babylonian  Captivity.-^  The  Maccabean 
persecution  left  them  ingrained  in  the  habits  of  the 
people,  and  Josephus  tells  us  a  contemporary  story 
which  reminds  us  of  that  of  Daniel  and  his  companions. 
He  says  that  certain  priests,  who  were  friends  of  his 
own,  had  been  imprisoned  in  Rome,  and  that  he  en- 
deavoured to  procure  their  release,  "  especially  because 
I  was  informed  that  they  were  not  unmindful  of  piety 
towards  God,  but  supported  themselves  with  figs  and 
nuts,"  because  in  such  eating  of  dry  food  (^rjpocpayiay 
as  it  was  called)  there  was  no  chance  of  heathen 
defilement.^  It  need  hardly  be  added  that  when  the  time 
came  to  break  down  the  partition-wall  which  separated 
Jewish  particularism  from  the  universal  brotherhood 
of  mankind  redeemed  in  Christ,  the  Apostles — especially 
St.  Paul — had  to  show  the  meaningless  nature  of  many 
distinctions  to  which  the  Jews  attached  consummate 
importance.  The  Talmud  abounds  in  stories  intended 
to  glorify  the  resoluteness  with  which  the  Jews  main- 
tained their  stereotyped  Levitism ;  but  Christ  taught, 
to  the  astonishment  of  the  Pharisees  and  even  of  the 
disciples,  that  it  is  not  what  entereth  into  a  man  which 
makes  him  unclean,  but  the  unclean  thoughts  which 
come  from  within,  from  the  heart.^  And  this  He  said, 
KaOapl^wv  Trdvra  ra  ^pcofjuara — i.e.,  abolishing  thereby 
the  Levitic  Law,  and  "  making  all  meats  clean."  Yet, 
even  after  this,  it  required  nothing  less  than  that  Divine 

'  Mr.  Bevan  says  that  the  verb  for  "  defile  "  (PNJ),  as  a  ritual  term 
for  the  idea  of  ceremonial  uncleanness,  is  post-exilic  ;  the  Pentateuch 
and  Ezekiel  used  XDtD  {Comment.,  p.  6i).  The  idea  intended  is  that 
the  three  boys  avoided  meat  which  might  have  been  killed  with 
the  blood  and  offered  to  idols,  and  therefore  was  not  Kashar  (Exod. 
xxxiv.  15). 

2  Jos.,  Vit.,  iii.     Comp,  Isa.  lii.  1 1. 
Mark  vii.  19  (according  to  the  true  reading  and  translation). 


THE  PRELUDE  133 


vision  on  the  tanner's  roof  at  Joppa  to  convince  Peter 
that  he  was  not  to  call  '*  common "  what  God  had 
cleansed/  and  it  required  all  the  keen  insight  and 
fearless  energy  of  St.  Paul  to  prevent  the  Jews  from 
keeping  an  intolerable  yoke  upon  their  own  necks, 
and  also  laying  it  upon  the  necks  of  the  Gentiles.^ 

The  four  princely  boys — they  may  have  been  from 
twelve  to  fourteen  years  old  ^ — determined  not  to  share 
in  the  royal  dainties,  and  begged  the  Sar-hassarisim  to 
allow  them  to  live  on  pulse  and  water,  rather  than  on 
the  luxuries  in  which — for  them — lurked  a  heathen 
pollution.  The  eunuch  not  unnaturally  demurred.  The 
daily  rations  were  provided  from  the  royal  table.  He 
was  responsible  to  the  king  for  the  beauty  and  health,- 
as  well  as  for  the  training,  of  his  young  scholars  ;  and 
if  Nebuchadrezzar  saw  them  looking  more  meagre  or 
haggard*  than  the  rest  of  the  captives  and  other  pages, 
the  chamberlain's  head  might  pay  the  forfeit.^  But 
Daniel,  like  Joseph  in  Egypt,  had  inspired  affection 
among  his  captors ;  and  since  the  prince  of  the  eunuchs 
regarded  him  '^with  favour  and  tender  love,"  he  was 
the  more  willing  to  grant,  or  at  least  to  connive  at,  the 
fulfilment  of  the  boy's  wish.  So  Daniel  gained  over 
the  Melzar  (or  steward  ?),''  who  was  in  immediate 
charge  of  the  boys,  and  begged  him  to  try  the  experi- 
ment for  ten  days.     If  at  the  end  of  that  time  their 

*  Acts  X.  14. 

-  I  Cor.  xi,  25.  This  rigorism  was  specially  valued  by  the  Essenes 
and  Therapeutae.     See  Derenbourg,  Palestine,  note,  vi. 

^  Plato,  Alcib.,  i.  37 ;  Xen.,  Cyrop.,  i.  2.  Youths  entered  the  king's 
service  at  the  age  of  seventeen. 

*  Lit.  "sadder."     LXX.,  crKvdpcjTroi. 

*  LXX.,  KLvhvveiLXTU)  Tip  I8i({}  TpaxoKij}. 

^  Perhaps  the  Assyrian  matstsara,  "  guardian  "  (Delitzsch).  There 
are  various  other  guesses  (Behrmann,  p.  5). 


134  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

health  or  beauty  had  suffered,  the  question  might  be 
reconsidered. 

So  for  ten  days  the  four  faithful  children  were  fed 
on  water,  and  on  the  "  seeds  " — i.e.,  vegetables,  dates, 
raisins,  and  other  fruits,  which  are  here  generally  called 
**  pulse."  ^  At  the  end  of  the  ten  days — a  sort  of  mystic 
Persian  week^ — they  were  found  to  be  fairer  and 
fresher  than  all  the  other  captives  of  the  palace.^ 
Thenceforth  they  were  allowed  without  hindrance  to 
keep  the  customs  of  their  countr}''. 

Nor  was  this  all.  During  the  three  probationary 
years  they  continued  to  flourish  intellectually  as  well 
as  physically.  They  attained  to  conspicuous  excellence 
'*in  all  kinds  of  books  and  wisdom,"  and  Daniel  also 
had  understanding  in  all  kinds  of  dreams  and  visions, 
to  which  the  Chaldeans  attached  supreme  importance.* 
The  Jews  exulted  in  these  pictures  of  four  youths  of 
their  own  race  who,  though  they  were  strangers  in 
a  strange  land,  excelled  all  their  alien  compeers  in  their 
own  chosen  fields  of  learning.     There  were  already  two 


'  Heb.,  D''r"lT  ;  LXX.,  (nrtpfiaTa ;  Vulg.,  legiimina.  Abn  Ezra  took 
the  word  to  mean  "rice."  Comp.  Deut.  xii.  15,  16;  I  Sam.  xvii.  17,  18. 
Comp.  Josephus  {Vit.,  iii.),  who  tells  us  how  the  Jewish  priests, 
prisoners  in  Rome,  fed  on  (riJ/cois  Kal  KapdoLS. 

^  Ewald,  Antiquities,  p.  13 1  f. 

^  Pusey(p.  17)  quotes  from  Chardin's  notes  in  Harmer  {Obs.,  lix.)  : 
"  I  have  remarked  that  the  countenance  of  the  Kechicks  (monks) 
are,  in  fact,  more  rosy  and  smooth  than  those  of  others,  and  that  those 
who  fast  much  are,  notwithstanding,  very  beautiful,  sparkling  with 
health,  with  a  clear  and  lively  countenance." 

*  The  Chartummim  are  like  the  Egyptian  i€poypafxfxaTe7$.  It  is 
difficult  to  conceive  that  there  was  less  chance  of  pollution  in  being 
elaborately  trained  in  heathen  magic  and  dream-interpretation  than 
in  eating  Babylonian  food.  But  this  was,  so  to  speak,  extra  fabulam. 
It  did  not  enter  into  the  writer's  scheme  of  moral  edification.  If, 
however,  the  story  is  meant  to  imply  that  these  youths  accepted  the 


THE  PRELUDE  135 


such  pictures  in  Jewish  history, — that  of  the  youthful 
Moses,  learned  in  all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians, 
and  a  great  man  and  a  prince  among  the  magicians  of 
Pharaoh  ;  and  that  of  Joseph,  v/ho,  though  there  were 
so  many  Egyptian  diviners,  alone  could  interpret  dreams, 
whether  in  the  dungeon  or  at  the  foot  of  the  throne. 
A  third  picture,  that  of  Daniel  at  the  court  of  Babylon, 
is  now  added  to  them,  and  in  all  three  cases  the  glory 
is  given  directly,  not  to  them,  but  to  the  God  of  heaven, 
the  God  of  their  fathers. 

At  the  close  of  the  three  years  the  prince  of  the 
eunuchs  brought  all  his  young  pages  into  the  presence 
of  the  King  Nebuchadrezzar.  He  tested  them  by 
famihar  conversation,^  and  found  the  four  Jewish  lads 
superior  to  all  the  rest.  They  were  therefore  chosen 
"  to  stand  before  the  king  " — in  other  words,  to  become 
his  personal  attendants.  As  this  gave  free  access  to 
his  presence,  it  involved  a  position  not  only  of  high 
honour,  but  of  great  influence.  And  their  superiority 
stood  the  test  of  time.     Whenever  the  king  consulted 


heathen  training,  though  (as  we  know  from  tablets  and  inscriptions) 
the  incantations,  etc.,  in  which  it  abounded  were  intimately  connected 
with  idolatry,  and  were  entirely  unharmed  by  it,  this  may  indicate 
that  the  writer  did  not  disapprove  of  the  "  Greek  training  "  which 
Antiochus  tried  to  introduce,  so  far  as  it  merely  involved  an  acquaint- 
ance with  Greek  learning  and  literature.  This  is  the  view  of  Gratz. 
If  so,  the  writer  belonged  to  the  more  liberal  Jewish  school  which  did 
not  object  to  a  study  of  the  Chokmath  Javamth,  or  "Wisdom  of 
Javan"  (Derenbourg,  Palestine,  p.  361). 

*  LXX.,  iXaX-rja-e  fier  avrCjv.  Considering  the  normal  degradation  of 
pages  at  Oriental  courts,  of  which  Rycaut  (referred  to  by  Pusey,  p.  18) 
"gives  a  horrible  account,"  their  escape  from  the  corruption  around 
them  was  a  blessed  reward  of  their  faithfulness.  They  may  now  have 
been  seventeen,  the  age  for  entering  the  king's  service  (Xen.,  Cyrop., 
1.  ii.  8).  On  the  ordinary  curse  of  the  rule  of  eunuchs  at  Eastern 
courts  see  an  interesting  note  in  Pusey,  p.  21. 


136  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

them  on  matters  which  required  "  wisdom  of  under- 
standing," he  found  them  not  only  better,  but  "ten 
times  better,"  than  all  the  "magicians"  and  "astrolo- 
gers "  that  were  in  all  his  realm. ^ 

The  last  verse  of  the  chapter,  "  And  Daniel  continued 
even  unto  the  first  year  of  King  Cyrus,"  is  perhaps 
a  later  gloss,  for  it  appears  from  x.  i  that  Daniel  hved, 
at  any  rate,  till  the  third  y^d^r  of  Cyrus.  Abn  Ezra  adds 
the  words  "continued  in  Babylon,''  and  Ewald  "at  the 
king's  court."  Some  interpret  "  continued "  to  mean 
"  remained  ahve."  The  reason  for  mentioning  "  the 
first  year  of  Cyrus  "  may  be  to  show  that  Daniel  sur- 
vived the  return  from  the  Exile,^  and  also  to  mark  the 
fact  that  he  attained  a  great  age.  For  if  he  were  about 
fourteen  at  the  beginning  of  the  narrative,  he  would 
be  eighty-five  in  the  first  year  of  Cyrus.  Dr.  Pusey 
remarks  :  "  Simple  words,  but  what  a  volume  of  tried 
faithfulness  is  unrolled  by  them  !  Amid  all  the  intrigues 
indigenous  at  all  times  in  dynasties  of  Oriental  despotism, 
amid  all  the  envy  towards  a  foreign  captive  in  high 
office  as  a  king's  councillor,  amid  all  the  trouble  inci- 
dental to  the  insanity  of  the  king  and  the  murder  of 
two  of  his  successors,  in  that  whole  critical  period  for 
his  people,  Daniel  continued^  ^ 

The  domestic  anecdote  of  this  chapter,  like  the  other 
more  splendid  narratives  which  succeed  it,  has  a  value 
far  beyond  the  circumstances  in  which  it  may  have 
originated.  It  is  a  beautiful  moral  illustration  of  the 
blessings  which  attend  on  faithfulness  and  on  temper- 
ance, and  whether  it  be  an  Haggada  or  an  historic 
tradition,  it  equally  enshrines  the  same  noble  lesson  as 

'  On  the  names  see  Gesenius,  Isaiah^  ii.  355. 
^  Alluded  to  in  ix.  25. 
^  Daniel,  pp.  20,  21. 


THE  PRELUDE  137 


that  which  was  taught  to  all  time  by  the  early  stories 
of  the  Books  of  Genesis  and  Exodus.^ 

It  teaches  the  crown  and  blessing  of  faithfulness. 
It  was  the  highest  glory  of  Israel  ^*to  upUft  among 
the  nations  the  banner  of  righteousness."  It  matters 
not  that,  in  this  particular  instance,  the  Jewish  boys 
were  contending  for  a  mere  ceremonial  rule  which  in 
itself  was  immaterial,  or  at  any  rate  of  no  eternal 
significance.  Suffice  it  that  this  rule  presented  itself 
to  them  in  the  guise  of  a  principle  and  of  a  sacred  duty, 
exactly  as  it  did  to  Eleazar  the  Scribe,  and  Judas  the 
Maccabee,  and  the  Mother  and  her  seven  strong  sons 
in  the  days  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  They  regarded  it 
as  a  duty  to  their  laws,  to  their  country,  to  their  God  ; 
and  therefore  upon  them  it  was  sacredly  incumbent. 
And  they  were  faithful  to  it.  Among  the  pampered 
minions  and  menials  of  the  vast  Babylonian  palace — 
undazzled  by  the  glitter  of  earthly  magnificence,  un- 
tempted  by  the  allurements  of  pomp,  pleasure,  and 
sensuous  indulgence — 

"Amid  innumerable  false,  unmoved, 
Unshaken,  unseduced,  unterrified, 
Their  loyalty  they  kept,  their  faith,  their  love." 

And  because  God  loves  them  for  their  constancy, 
because  they  remain  pure  and  true,  all  the  Babylonian 
varletry  around  them  learns  the  lesson  of  simplicity, 
the  beauty  of  holiness.  Amid  the  outpourings  of  the 
Divine  favour  they  flourish,  and  are  advanced  to  the 
highest  honours.  This  is  one  great  lesson  which 
dominates  the  historic  section  of  this  Book  :  ''  Them 
that  honour  Me  I  will  honour,  and  they  that  despise 

'  Comp.  Gen.  xxxix.  21  ;  i  Kings  viii.  50 ;  Neh.  i.  i ;  Psalm 
cvi.  46. 


138  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

Me  shall  be  lightly  esteemed."  It  is  the  lesson  of 
Joseph's  superiority  to  the  glamour  of  temptation  in  the 
house  of  Potiphar ;  of  the  choice  of  Moses,  preferring  to 
suffer  afQiction  with  the  people  of  God  rather  than  all 
the  treasures  of  Egypt  and  "to  be  called  the  son  of 
Pharaoh's  daughter  "  ;  of  Samuel's  stainless  innocence 
beside  the  corrupting  example  of  Eli's  sons  ;  of  David's 
strong,  pure,  ruddy  boyhood  as  a  shepherd-lad  on 
Bethlehem's  hills.  It  is  the  anticipated  story  of  that 
yet  hoher  childhood  of  Him  who — subject  to  His 
parents  in  the  sweet  vale  of  Nazareth — blossomed 
'^  like  the  flower  of  roses  in  the  spring  of  the  year,  and 
as  lilies  by  the  water-courses."  The  young  human 
being  who  grows  up  in  innocence  and  self-control  grows 
up  also  in  grace  and  beauty,  in  wisdom  and  "  in  favour 
with  God  and  man."  The  Jews  specially  delighted  in 
these  pictures  of  boyish  continence  and  piety,  and  they 
lay  at  the  basis  of  all  that  was  greatest  in  their  national 
character. 

But  there  also  lay  incidentally  in  the  story  a  warning 
against  corrupting  luxury,  the  lesson  of  the  need  for, 
and  the  healthfulness  of, 

"The  rule  of  not  too  much  by  temperance  taught." 

"  The  love  of  sumptuous  food  and  delicious  drinks  is 
never  good,"  says  Ewald,  "  and  with  the  use  of  the 
most  temperate  diet  body  and  soul  can  flourish  most 
admirably,  as  experience  had  at  that  time  sufficiently 
taught." 

To  the  value  of  this  lesson  the  Nazarites  among  the 
Jews  were  a  perpetual  witness.  Jeremiah  seems  to 
single  them  out  for  the  special  beauty  which  resulted 
from  their  youthful  abstinence  when  he  writes  of 
Jerusalem,  "  Her  Nazarites  were  purer  than  snow,  they 


THE  PRELUDE  139 

were  whiter  than  milk,  they  were  more  ruddy  in  body 
than  rubies,  their  poHshing  was  of  sapphires."  ^ 

It  is  the  lesson  which  Milton  reads  in  the  story  of 
Samson, — 

"  O  madness !  to  think  use  of  strongest  wines 
And  strongest  drinks  our  chief  support  of  health, 
When  God,  with  these  forbidden,  made  choice  to  rear 
His  mighty  champion,  strong  above  compare, 
Whose  drink  was  only  from  the  liquid  brook ! " 

It  is  the  lesson  which  Shakespeare  inculcates  when 
he  makes  the  old  man  say  in  As  You  Like  It, — 

"When  I  was  young  I  never  did  apply 
Hot  and  rebellious  liquors  in  my  blood, 
Nor  did  not  with  unblushful  forehead  woo 
The  means  of  weakness  and  debility ; 
Therefore  mine  age  is  as  a  lusty  winter, 
Frosty,  yet  kindly." 

The  writer  of  this  Book  connects  intellectual  advance 
as  well  as  physical  strength  with  this  abstinence,  and 
here  he  is  supported  even  by  ancient  and  pagan  experi- 
ence. Something  of  this  kind  may  perhaps  lurk  in  the 
dpLo-Tov  fiev  vB(op  of  Pindar ;  and  certainly  Horace  saw 
that  gluttony  and  repletion  are  foes  to  insight  when  he 
wrote, — 

"Nam  corpus  onustum 
Hesternis  vitiis  animum  quoque  praegravat  una, 
Atque  affigit  humo  divinse  particulam  aurae."^ 

Pythagoras  was  not  the  only  ancient  philosopher  who 
recommended  and  practised  a  vegetable  diet,  and  even 
Epicurus,  whom  so  many  regard  as 

"  The  soft  garden's  rose-encircled  child," 
placed  over  his  garden  door  the  inscription  that  those 

1  Lam.  iv.  7.  ^  Hq^.,  Sat,  II.  ii.  77. 


140  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

who  came  would  only  be  regaled  on  barley-cakes  and 
fresh  water,  to  satisfy,  but  not  to  allure,  the  appetite. 

But  the  grand  lesson  of  the  picture  is  meant  to  be 
that  the  fair  Jewish  boys  were  kept  safe  in  the  midst  of 
every  temptation  to  self-indulgence,  because  they  lived 
as  in  God's  sight :  and  '*  he  that  holds  himself  in  rever- 
ence and  due  esteem  for  the  dignity  of  God's  image 
upon  him,  accounts  himself  both  a  fit  person  to  do  the 
noblest  and  godliest  deeds,  and  much  better  worth  than 
to  deject  and  defile,  with  such  debasement  and  pollu- 
tion as  Sin  is,  himself  so  highly  ransomed  and  ennobled 
to  a  new  friendship  and  filial  relation  with  God."  ^ 

^  Milton,  Reason  of  Church  Government. 


CHAPTER    II 

THE  DREAM-IMAGE   OF  RUINED  EMPIRES 
"  With  thee  will  I  break  in  pieces  rulers  and  captains." — Jer.  li.  23. 

'HE  Book  of  Daniel  is  constructed  with  consum- 


T 


mate  skill  to  teach  the  mighty  lessons  which  it 
was  designed  to  bring  home  to  the  minds  of  its  readers, 
not  only  in  the  age  of  its  first  appearance,  but  for  ever. 
It  is  a  book  which,  so  far  from  being  regarded  as 
unworthy  of  its  place  in  the  Canon  by  those  who  cannot 
accept  it  as  either  genuine  or  authentic,  is  valued  by 
many  such  critics  as  a  very  noble  work  of  inspired 
genius,  from  which  all  the  difficulties  are  removed  when 
it  is  considered  in  the  light  of  its  true  date  and  origin. 
This  second  chapter  belongs  to  all  time.  All  that  might 
be  looked  upon  as  involving  harshnesses,  difficulties, 
and  glaring  impossibilities,  if  it  were  meant  for  literal 
history  and  prediction,  vanishes  when  we  contemplate 
it  in  its  real  perspective  as  a  lofty  specimen  of  imagina- 
tive fiction,  used,  like  the  parables  of  our  Blessed  Lord, 
as  the  vehicle  for  the  deepest  truths.  We  shall  see 
how  the  imagery  of  the  chapter  produced  a  deep  impress 
on  the  imagination  of  the  holiest  thinkers — how  magni- 
ficent a  use  is  made  of  it  fifteen  centuries  later  by  the 
great  poet  of  mediaeval  Catholicism.^  It  contains  the 
germs  of  the  only  philosophy  of  history  which  has  stood 

•  Dante,  Inferno,  xiv.  94-120. 
141 


142  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

the  test  of  time.  It  symbolises  that  ultimate  conviction 
of  the  Psalmist  that  '*  God  is  the  Governor  among  the 
nations."  No  other  conviction  can  suffice  to  give  us 
consolation  amid  the  perplexity  which  surrounds  the 
passing  phases  of  the  destinies  of  empires. 

The  first  chapter  serves  as  a  keynote  of  soft,  simple, 
and  delightful  music  by  way  of  overture.  It  calms  us 
for  the  contemplation  of  the  awful  and  tumultuous 
scenes  that  are  now  in  succession  to  be  brought 
before  us. 

The  model  which  the  writer  has  had  in  view  in  this 
Haggadah  is  the  forty-first  chapter  of  the  Book  of 
Genesis.  In  both  chapters  we  have  magnificent  heathen 
potentates — Pharaoh  of  Egypt,  and  Nebuchadrezzar  of 
Babylon.  In  both  chapters  the  kings  dream  dreams 
by  which  they  are  profoundly  troubled.  In  both,  their 
spirits  are  saddened.  In  both,  they  send  for  all  the 
Chakamim  and  all  the  Chartummim  of  their  kingdoms 
to  interpret  the  dreams.  In  both,  these  professional 
magicians  prove  themselves  entirely  incompetent  to 
furnish  the  interpretation.  In  both,  the  failure  of  the 
heathen  oneirologists  is  emphasised  by  the  immediate 
success  of  a  Jewish  captive.  In  both,  the  captives  are 
described  as  young,  gifted,  and  beautiful.  In  both, 
the  interpretation  of  the  king's  dream  is  rewarded  by 
the  elevation  to  princely  civil  honours.  In  both,  the 
immediate  elevation  to  ruling  position  is  followed  by 
life-long  faithfulness  and  prosperity.  When  we  add 
that  there  are  even  close  verbal  resemblances  between 
the  chapters,  it  is  difficult  not  to  believe  that  the  one 
has  been  influenced  by  the  other. 

The  dream  is  placed  ''  in  the  second  year  of  the  reign 
of  Nebuchadnezzar."  The  date  is  surprising;  for  the 
first   chapter    has    made    Nebuchadrezzar    a   king    of 


THE  DREAM-IMAGE   OF  RUINED  EMPIRES        143 


Babylon  after  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  '*  in  the  third  year 
of  Jehoiakim  "  ;  and  setting  aside  the  historic  impossi- 
bilities involved  in  that  date,  this  scene  would  then  fall 
in  the  second  year  of  the  probation  of  Daniel  and  his 
companions,  and  at  a  time  when  Daniel  could  only 
have  been  a  boy  of  fifteen.^  The  apologists  get  over 
the  difficulty  with  the  ease '  which  suffices  superficial 
readers  who  are  already  convinced.  Thus  Rashi  says 
^*  the  second  year  oj  Nebuchadnezzar^^  meaning  "  the 
second  year  after  the  destruction  of  the  Temple"  t.e.^  his 
twentieth  year  !  Josephus,  no  less  arbitrarily,  makes 
it  mean  "the  second  year  after  the  devastation  of 
Egypt."  ^  By  such  devices  anything  may  stand  for 
anything.  Hengstenberg  and  his  school,  after  having 
made  Nebuchadrezzar  a  king,  conjointly  with  his 
father — a  fact  of  which  history  knows  nothing,  and 
indeed  seems  to  exclude — say  that  the  second  year  of 
his  reign  does  not  mean  the  second  year  after  he 
became  king,  but  the  second  year  of  his  independent 
rule  after  the  death  of  Nabopolassar.  This  style  of 
interpretation  is  very  familiar  among  harmonists,  and 
it  makes  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  perpetually 
dependent  on  pure  fancy.  It  is  perhaps  sufficient  to 
say  that  Jewish  writers,  in  works  meant  for  spiritual 
teaching,  troubled  themselves  extremely  little  with 
minutiae  of  this  kind.  Like  the  Greek  dramatists,  they 
were  unconcerned  with  details,  to  which  they  attached 
no  importance,  which  they  regarded  as  lying  outside 
the  immediate  purpose  of  their  narrative.  But  if  any 
explanation  be  needful,  the  simplest  way  is,  with  Ewald, 
Herzfeld,   and  Lenormant,  to  make  a  slight  alteration 

*  The  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  kings,  however,  only  dated  their 
reigns  from  the  first  new  year  after  their  accession. 

*  Antt,  X.  X.  3. 


144  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

in  the  text,  and  to  read  "  in  the  twelfth  "  instead  of  ^'  in 
the  second  year  of  the  reign  of  Nebuchadnezzar." 

There  was  nothing  strange  in  the  notion  that  God 
should  have  vouchsafed  a  prophetic  dream  to  a  heathen 
potentate.  Such  instances  had  already  been  recorded 
in  the  case  of  Pharaoh  (Gen.  xli.),  as  well  as  of  his 
chief  courtiers  (Gen.  xl.)  ;  and  in  the  case  of  Abimelech 
(Gen.  XX.  5-7).  It  was  also  a  Jewish  tradition  that  it 
was  in  consequence  of  a  dream  that  Pharaoh  Necho 
had  sent  a  warning  to  Josiah  not  to  advance  against 
him  to  the  Battle  of  Megiddo.^  Such  dreams  are 
recorded  in  the  cuneiform  inscriptions  as  having  oc- 
curred to  Assyrian  monarchs.  Ishtar,  the  goddess  of 
battles,  had  appeared  to  Assur-bani-pal,  and  promised 
him  safety  in  his  war  against  Teumman,  King  of  Elam ; 
and  the  dream  of  a  ^eer  had  admonished  him  to  take 
severe  steps  against  his  rebel  brother,  the  Viceroy  of 
Babylon.  Gyges,  King  of  Lydia,  had  been  warned  in 
a  dream  to  make  alliance  with  Assur-bani-pal.  In  Egypt 
Amen-meri-hout  had  been  warned  by  a  dream  to  unite 
Egypt  against  the  Assyrians.^  Similarly  in  Persian 
history  Afrasiab  has  an  ominous  dream,  and  summons 
all  the  astrologers  to  interpret  it;  and  some  of  them 
bid  him  pay  no  attention  to  it.^  Xerxes  (Herod.,  iii.  19) 
and  Astyages  (Herod.,  i.  108)  have  dreams  indicative 
of  future  prosperity  or  adversity.  The  fundamental 
conception  of  the  chapter  was  therefore  in  accordance 
with  history  * — though  to  say,  with  the  Speaker's  Com- 
mentary,  that  these  parallels  "  endorse  the  authenticity  of 

*  2  Chron.  xxxv.  21.  See  The  Second  Book  of  Kings,  p.  404  (Ex- 
positor's Bible). 

^  See  Professor  Fuller,  Speaker's  Commentary ,  vi.  265. 

^  Malcolm,  Hist,  of  Persia^  i.  39. 

■•  The  belief  that  dreams  come  from  God  is  not   peculiar  to  the 


THE  DREAM-IMAGE  OF  RUINED  EMPIRES        145 

the  Biblical  narratives,"  is  either  to  use  inaccurate 
terms,  or  to  lay  the  unhallowed  fire  of  false  argument 
on  the  sacred  altar  of  truth.  It  is  impossible  to  think 
without  a  sigh  of  the  vast  amount  which  would  have 
to  be  extracted  from  so-called  *'  orthodox "  commen- 
taries, if  such  passages  were  rigidly  reprobated  as  a 
dishonour  to  the  cause  of  God. 

Nebuchadrezzar  then — in  the  second  or  twelfth  year 
of  his  reign — dreamed  a  dream,  by  which  (as  in  the 
case  of  Pharaoh)  his  spirit  was  troubled  and  his  sleep 
interrupted.^  His  state  of  mind  on  waking  is  a  psycho- 
logical condition  with  which  we  are  all  familiar.  We 
awake  in  a  tremor.  We  have  seen  something  which 
disquieted  us,  but  we  cannot  recall  what  it  was  ;  we 
have  had  a  frightful  dream,  but  we  can  only  remember 
the  terrifying  impression  which  it  has  left  upon  our 
minds. 

Pharaoh,  in  the  story  of  Joseph,  remembered  his 
dreams,  and  only  asked  the  professors  of  necromancy 
to  furnish  him  with  its  interpretation.  But  Nebuchad- 
rezzar is  here  represented  as  a  rasher  and  fiercer  despot, 
not  without  a  side-glance  at  the  raging  folly  and  tyranny 
of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  He  has  at  his  command  an 
army  of  priestly  prognosticators,  whose  main  function 
it  is  to  interpret  the  various  omens  of  the  future.  Of 
what  use  were  they,  if  they  could  not  be  relied  upon 
in  so  serious  an  exigency  ?  Were  they  to  be  main- 
tained in  opulence  and  dignity  all  their  lives,  only  to 

Jews,  or  to  Egypt,  or  Assyria,  or  Greece  (Horn.,  //,,  i.  63 ;  Od.,  iv. 
841),  or  Rome  (Cic,  De  Div.,  passim),  but  to  every  nation  of  mankind, 
even  the  most  savage. 

*  Dan.  ii.  i:  ''His  dreaming  braice  from  him."  Comp.  vi.  18; 
Esther  vi.  I  :  Jerome  says,  "  Umbra  quaedam,  et,  ut  ita  dicam,  aura 
somnii  atque  vestigium  remansit  in  corde  regis,  ut,  referentibus  aliis 
posset  reminisci  eorum  quae  viderat." 

10 


146  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

fail  him  at  a  crisis  ?  It  was  true  that  he  had  forgotten 
the  dream,  but  it  was  obviously  one  of  supreme  import- 
ance ;  it  was  obviously  an  intimation  from  the  gods  : 
was  it  not  clearly  their  duty  to  say  what  it  meant  ? 
So  Nebuchadrezzar  summoned  together  the  whole 
class  of  Babylonian  augurs  in  all  their  varieties — the 
Chartummtm,  "  magicians,"  or  book-learned  ;  ^  the  Ash- 
shaphtm,  '*  enchanters  " ;  ^  the  Mekashaphtm,  "  sor- 
cerers "  ;  ^  and  the  Kasdirn^  to  which  the  writer  gives 
the  long  later  sense  of  "  dream-interpreters,"  which  had 
become  prevalent  in  his  own  day.*  In  later  verses  he 
adds  two  further  sections  of  the  students — the  Kha- 
khannm,  "wise  men,"  and  the  Gazerim,  or  "sooth- 
sayers." Attempts  have  often  been  made,  and  most 
recently  by  Lenormant,  to  distinguish  accurately  between 
these  classes  of  magi,  but  the  attempts  evaporate  for 
the  most  part  into  shadowy  etymologies.^  It  seems  to 
have  been  a  literary  habit  with  the  author  to  amass  a 
number  of  names  and  titles  together.^  It  is  a  part  of 
the  stateliness  and  leisureliness  of  style  which  he 
adopts,  and  he  gives  no  indication  of  any  sense  of 
difference   between   the   classes  which  he  enumerates. 


'  Gen.  xli.  8  ;  Schrader,  K.  A.  T.,  p.  26  ;  Records  of  the  Past,  i.  136. 

2  The  word  is  peculiar  to  Daniel,  both  here  in  the  Hebrew  and  in 
the  Aramaic.  Pusey  calls  it  "  a  common  Syriac  term,  representing 
some  form  of  divination  with  which  Daniel  had  become  familiar  in 
Babylonia"  (p.  40). 

^  Exod.  vii.  11;  Deut.  xviii.  10;  Isa.  xlvii.  9,  12.  Assyrian /Tas/j- 
shapu. 

*  As  in  the  rule  "  Chaldceos  ne  constdito."     See  supra,  p.  48. 

*  The  equivalents  in  the  LXX.,  Vulgate,  A.V.,  and  other  versions 
are  mostly  based  on  uncertain  guess-work.  See  E.  Meyer,  Gesch.  d, 
Alterth.,  i.  185  ;  Hommel,  Gesch.  Bab.  u.  Assyr.,  v.  386  ;  Behrmann,  p.  2, 

^  E.g.,  iii.  2,  3,  officers  of  state;  iii.  4,  5,  etc.,  instruments  of 
music;  iii.  21,  clothes.     - 


THE  DREAM-IMAGE   OF  RUINED  EMPIRES        147 

either   here    or   when    he    describes   various   ranks   of 
Babylonian  officials. 

When  they  were  assembled  before  him,  the  king 
informed  them  that  he  had  dreamed  an  important  dream, 
but  that  it  produced  such  agitation  of  spirit  as  had 
caused  him  to  forget  its  import.^  He  plainly  expected 
them  to  supply  the  failure  of  his  memory,  for  "a  dream 
not  interpreted,"  say  the  Rabbis,  '^  is  like  a  letter  not 
read."  ^ 

Then  spake  the  Chaldeans  to  the  king,  and  their 
answer  follows  in  Aramaic  {Aramtth),  a  language 
which  continues  to  be  used  till  the  end  of  chap.  vii. 
The  Western  Aramaic,  however,  here  employed  could 
not  have  been  the  language  in  which  they  spoke,  but 
their  native  Babylonian,  a  Semitic  dialect  more  akin  to 
Eastern  Aramaic.  The  word  Aramtth  here,  as  in  Ezra 
iv.  7,  is  probably  a  gloss  or  marginal  note,  to  point  out 
the  sudden  change  in  the  language  of  the  Book. 

With  the  courtly  phrase,  "  O  king,  live  for  ever," 
they  promised  to  tell  the  king  the  interpretation,  if  he 
would  tell  them  the  dream. 

"  That  I  cannot  do,"  said  the  king,  ^'  for  it  is  gone 
from  me.  Nevertheless,  if  you  do  not  tell  me  both  the 
dream  and  its  interpretation,  you  shall  be  hacked  limb 
by  limb,  and  your  houses  shall  be  made  a  dunghill."  ^ 

The  language  was  that  of  brutal  despotism  such  as 
had  been  customary  for  centuries  among  the  ferocious 


'  ii.  5  •  "The  dream  is  gone  from  me,"  as  in  ver.  8  (Theodotion, 
direa-TT]).  But  the  meaning  may  be  the  decree  (or  word)  is  "  sure  "  : 
for,  according  to  Noldeke,  aeda  is  a  Persian  word  for  "  certain," 
Comp.  Esther  vii.  7  ;  Isa,  xlv.  23. 

^  Berachoth,  f.  10,  2.  This  book  supplies  a  charm  to  be  spoken  by 
one  who  has  forgotten  his  dream  (f.  55,  2). 

3  Dan.  ii.  5,  iii.  29.     Theodot.,   eis  dTrwXekv  '^(xeade.     Lit.  "  ye  shall 


148  THE   BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

tyrants  of  Assyria.  The  punishment  of  dismemberment, 
dichotomy,  or  death  by  mutilation  was  common  among 
them,  and  had  constantly  been  depicted  on  their 
monuments.  It  was  doubtless  known  to  the  Baby- 
lonians also,  being  familiar  to  the  apathetic  cruelty  of 
the  East.  Similarly  the  turning  of  the  houses  of 
criminals  into  draught-houses  was  a  vengeance  prac- 
tised among  other  nations.^  On  the  other  hand,  if  the 
"  Chaldeans  "  arose  to  the  occasion,  the  king  would  give 
them  rewards  and  great  honours.  It  is  curious  to 
observe  that  the  Septuagint  translators,  with  Antiochus 
in  their  mind,  render  the  verse  in  a  form  which  would 
more  directly  remind  their  readers  of  Seleucid  methods. 
"  If  you  fail/'  they  make  the  king  say,  "  you  shall  be 
made  an  example,  and  your  goods  shall  be  forfeited  to 
the  crown."  ^ 

With  ''  nervous  servihty  "  the  magi  answer  to  the 
king's  extravagantly  unreasonable  demand,  that  he 
must  tell  them  the  dream  before  they  can  tell  him  the 
interpretation.  Ewald  is  probably  not  far  wrong  in 
thinking  that  a  subtle  element  of  irony  and  humour 
underlies  this  scene.  It  was  partly  intended  as  a 
satirical  reflection  on  the  mad  vagaries  of  Epiphanes. 

For  the  king  at  once  breaks  out  into  fury,  and 
tells  them  that   they  only  want  to  gain    (lit.  '*  buy  ") 

be  made  into  limbs,"  The  LXX.  render  it  by  diafieXi^o/xaL,  membrattnt 
conctdor,  in  frusta  fio.  Comp.  Matt.  xxiv.  51  ;  Smith's  Assur-bani-pal, 
p.  137.  The  word  haddam,  "  a  limb,"  seems  to  be  of  Persian  origin — 
in  modern  Persian  andam.  Hence  the  verb  hadim  in  the  Targum  of 
I  Kings  xviii.  33.     Comp.  2  Mace.  i.  16,  fxeXr)  rroieip. 

*  Comp.  Ezra  vi.  1 1 ;  2  Kings  x.  27 ;  Records  of  the  Past,  i. 
27,  43- 

■^  In  iii.  96,  Koi  T)  oUla  avrov  brjfx.evd-qceTaL.  Comp.  2  Mace.  iii.  13  : 
"  But  HeHodorus,  because  of  the  king's  commandment,  said,  That  in 
anywise  it  must  be  brought  into  the  king's  treasury." 


THE  DREAM-IMAGE   OF  RUINED  EMPIRES        149 

time;^  but  that  this  should  not  avail  them.  The 
dream  had  evidently  been  of  crucial  significance  and 
extreme  urgency  ;  something  important,  and  perhaps 
even  dreadful,  must  be  in  the  air.  The  very  raison 
detre  of  these  thaumaturgists  and  stargazers  was  to 
read  the  omens  of  the  future.  If  the  stars  told  of  any 
human  events,  they  could  not  fail  to  indicate  some- 
thing about  the  vast  trouble  v^hich  overshadowed  the 
monarch's  dream,  even  though  he  had  forgotten  its  de- 
tails. The  king  gave  them  to  understand  that  he  looked 
on  them  as  a  herd  of  impostors  ;  that  their  plea  for  delay 
was  due  to  mere  tergiversation ;  ^  and  that,  in  spite  of 
the  lying  and  corrupt  words  which  they  had  prepared 
in  order  to  gain  respite  *'  till  the  time  be  changed  "  ^ — 
that  is,  until  they  were  saved  by  some  ''  lucky  day  " 
Or  change  of  fortune  ^ — there  was  but  one  sentence  for 
them,  which  could  only  be  averted  by  their  vindicating 
their  own  immense  pretensions,  and  telling  him  his 
dream. 

The  ^'  Chaldeans  "  naturally  answered  that  the  king's 
request  was  impossible.  The  adoption  of  the  Aramaic 
at  this  point  may  be  partly  due  to  the  desire  for  local 
colouring.^  No  king  or  ruler  in  the  world  had  ever 
imposed  such  a  test  on  any  Kartum  or  Ashshaph  in  the 
world.^     No  living  man  could  possibly    achieve   any- 


'  LXX.  Theodot.,  Kaiphv  e^ayopd^ere  (not  in  a  good  sense,  as  in 
Eph.  V.  16 ;  Col.  iv.  5). 

^  Theodot.,  (xvviOeaOe.     Cf.  John  ix.  22. 

^  Theodot.,  ^ws  o5  6  Kacpbs  irap^Xdrj. 

'•  Esther  iii.  7. 

^  The  word  Aramith  may  be  (as  Lenormant  thinks)  a  gloss,  as  in 
Ezra  iv.  7. 

^  A  curious  parallel  is  adduced  by  Behrmann  {Daniel,  p.  7). 
Rabia-ibn-nazr,  King  of  Yemen,  has  a  dream  which  he  cannot  recall, 
and  acts  precisely  as  Nebuchadrezzar  does  (Wiistenfeld,  p.  9). 


I50  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


thing  so  difficult.  There  were  some  gods  whose 
dwelHng  is  with  flesh;  they  tenant  the  souls  of  their 
servants.  But  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  these  genii  to 
reveal  what  the  king  demands  ;  they  are  hmited  by  the 
weakness  of  the  souls  which  they  inhabit.^  It  can  only 
be  done  by  those  highest  divinities  whose  dweUing  is 
not  with  flesh,  but  who 

"  haunt 
The  lucid  interspace  of  world  and  world," 

and  are  too  far  above  mankind  to  mingle  with  their 
thoughts.^ 

Thereupon  the  unreasonable  king  was  angry  and 
very  furious,  and  the  decree  went  forth  that  the  magi 
were  to  be  slain  en  masse. 

How  it  was  that  Daniel  and  his  companions  were 
not  summoned  to  help  the  king,  although  they  had 
been  already  declared  to  be  "  ten  times  wiser  "  than  all 
the  rest  of  the  astrologers  and  magicians  put  together, 
is  a  feature  in  the  story  with  which  the  writer  does  not 
trouble  himself,  because  it  in  no  way  concerned  his 
main  purpose.  Now,  however,  since  they  were  pro- 
minent members  of  the  magian  guild,  they  are  doomed 
to  death  among  their  fellows.  Thereupon  Daniel 
sought  an  interview  with  Arioch,  "the  chief  of  the 
bodyguard,"^   and    asked    with   gentle   prudence   why 

*  See  Lenormant,  La  Magie,  pp.  181-183. 

^  LXX.,  ii.  II:  el  fi-q  tis  dyyeXos, 

'  Lit.  "  chief  of  the  slaughter-men "  or  "  executioners."  LXX., 
hpxi/Mdyeipos.  The  title  is  perhaps  taken  fi-om  the  story,  which  in  this 
chapter  is  so  prominently  in  the  writer's  mind,  where  the  same  title 
is  given  to  Pctiphar  (Gen.  xxxvii.  36).  Comp.  2  Kings  xxv.  8  ;  Jer. 
xxxix.  9.  The  name  Arioch  has  been  derived  from  Erz-n/eu,  "  servant 
of  the  moon-god  "  {supra,  p.  49),  but  is  found  in  Gen.  xiv.  I  as  the  name  of 
"  the  King  of  EUasar."  It  is  also  found  in  Judith  i.  6,  "  Arioch,  King 
of  the  Elymaeans."    An  Erim-aku,  King  of  Larsa,  is  found  in  cuneiform. 


ThlE  DREAM-IMAGE  OF  RUINED  EMPIRES        151 


the  decree  was  so  harshly  urgent.  By  Arioch's  inter- 
vention he  gained  an  interview  with  Nebuchadrezzar, 
and  promised  to  tell  him  the  dream  and  its  interpreta- 
tion, if  only  the  king  would  grant  him  a  little  time- 
perhaps  but  a  single  night.^ 

The  delay  was  conceded,  and  Daniel  went  to   his 
three  companions,  and  urged  then  to  join  in  prayer  that 
God  would  make  known  the  secret  to  them  and  spare 
their  lives.     Christ  tells  us  that  ''  if  two  shall  agree  on 
earth  as  touching  anything  that  they  ask,  it  shall  be 
done  for  them."  '     The  secret  was  revealed  to  Daniel 
in  a  vision  of  the  night,  and  he  blessed   ''  the  God  of 
heaven."  ^    Wisdom  and  might  are  his.     Not  dependent 
on    "lucky"    or  ''unlucky"    days.   He    changeth   the 
times  and  seasons  ;  *   He  setteth  down  one  king  and 
putteth  up  another.     By  His  revelation   of  deep   and 
sacred  things— for  the  light   dwelleth   with  Him -He 
had,  in  answer  to  their  common  prayer,  made  known 
the  secret.^ 

Accordingly  Daniel  bids  Arioch  not  to  execute  the 
magians,  but  to  go  and  tell  the  king  that  he  will  reveal 
to  him  the  interpretation  of  his  dream. 

1  If  Daniel  went  (as  the  text  says)  in  person,  he  must  have  been 
already  a  very  high  official.  (Comp.  Esther  v.  i  ;  Herod.,  i.  99-)  I^ 
so  it  would  have  been  strange  that  he  should  not  have  been  consulted 
among  the  magians.  All  these  details  are  regarded  as  insignificant, 
being  extraneous  to  the  general  purport  of  the  story  (Ewald,  Htst, 

iii.  194)-  ,    ,  ,         , 

2  Matt,  xviii.  19.  .The  LXX.  interpolate  a  ritual  gloss  :   /cat  trappy- 

yeiKe  prjareiav  Kal  dir](nu  Kal  Tifxtaplav  ^-nrrjaac  irapa  rod  ^vplov. 

3  The  title  is  found  in  Gen.  xxiv.  7,  but  only  became  common  after 
the  Exile  (Ezra  i.  2,  vi.  9,  10;  Neh.  i.  5,  ii.  4)- 

«  Comp.  Dan.  vii.  12;  Jer.  xxvii.  7;  Acts  i.  7,  xpo^o,  ij  mipoi', 
I  Thess.  v.  I ;  Acts  xvii.  26,  opLaas  irporeT ay fxevovs  Kaipovs. 

5  With  the  phraseology  of  this  prayer  comp.  Psalm  xxxvi.  9,  xli., 
cxxxix.  12 ;  Neh.  ix.  5 ;  i  Sam.  ii.  8  ;  Jer.  xxxii.  19 ;  Job  xii.  23. 


152  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

Then,  by  an  obvious  verbal  inconsistency  in  the 
story,  Arioch  is  represented  as  going  with  haste  to 
the  king,  with  Daniel,  and  saying  that  he  had  found  a 
captive  Jew  who  would  answer  the  king's  demands. 
Arioch  could  never  have  claimed  any  such  merit,  seeing 
that  Daniel  had  already  given  his  promise  to  Nebuchad- 
rezzar in  person,  and  did  not  need  to  be  described. 
The  king  formally  puts  to  Daniel  the  question  whether 
he  could  fulfil  his  pledge  ;  and  Daniel  answers  that, 
though  none  of  the  Khakhamim,  Ashshaphtm,  Char- 
tummmi,  or  Gazerim  ^  could  tell  the  king  his  dream, 
yet  there  is  a  God  in  heaven — higher,  it  is  implied,  than 
either  the  genii  or  those  whose  dwelling  is  not  with 
mortals — who  reveals  secrets,  and  has  made  known  to 
the  king  what  shall  be  in  the  latter  days.- 

The  king,  before  he  fell  asleep,  had  been  deeply 
pondering  the  issues  of  the  future;  and  God,  ''the 
revealer  of  secrets,"  ^  had  revealed  those  issues  to  him, 
not  because  of  any  supreme  wisdom  possessed  by 
Daniel,  but  simply  that  the  interpretation  might  be 
made  known."* 

The  king  had  seen  ^  a  huge  gleaming,  terrible 
colossus  of  many  colours  and  of  different  metals,  but 
otherwise  not   unlike  the  huge  colossi  which  guarded 


•  Here  the  new  title  Gazerim,  "  prognosticators,"  is  added  to  the 
others,  and  is  equally  vague.  It  may  be  derived  from  Gasar,  ''to  cut  " 
— that  is,  "to  determine." 

^  Comp,  Gen.  xx.  3,  xli.  25  ;  Numb.  xxii.  35. 

*  Comp.  Gen.  xli.  45. 

■*  Dan.  ii.  30:  "For  their  sakes  that  shall  make  known  the  inter- 
pretation to  the  king  "  (A.V.).  But  the  phrase  seems  merely  to  be 
one  of  the  vague  forms  for  the  impersonal  which  are  common  in  the 
Mishnah.     The  R.V.  and  Ewald  rightly  render  it  as  in  the  text. 

^  Here  we  have  (ver,  31)  aloo  !  "  behold  !  "  as  in  iv.  7,  lo,  vii.  8  ;  but 
in  vii.  2,  5,  6,  7,  13,  we  have  aroo  ! 


THE  DREAM-IMAGE   OF  RUINED  EMPIRES        153 

the  portals  of  his  own  palace.  Its  head  was  of  fine 
gold  ;  its  torso  of  silver ;  its  belly  and  thighs  of  brass ; 
its  legs  of  iron ;  its  feet  partly  of  iron  and  partly  of 
clay.^  But  while  he  gazed  upon  it  as  it  reared  into 
the  sunlight,  as  though  in  mute  defiance  and  insolent 
security,  its  grim  metallic  glare,  a  mysterious  and 
unforseen  fate  fell  upon  it.^  The  fragment  of  a  rock 
broke  itself  loose,  not  with  hands,  smote  the  image 
upon  its  feet  of  iron  and  clay,  and  broke  them  to  pieces. 
It  had  now  nothing  left  to  stand  upon,  and  instantly 
the  hollow  multiform  monster  collapsed  into  promiscuous 
ruins.^  Its  shattered  fragments  became  like  the  chaff 
of  the  summer  threshing-floor,  and  the  wind  swept  them 
away;*  but  the  rock,  unhewn  by  any  earthly  hands, 
grew  over  the  fragments  into  a  mountain  that  filled  the 
earth. 

That  was  the  haunting  and  portentous  dream  ;  and 
this  was  its  interpretation  : — 

The  head  of  gold  was  Nebuchadrezzar  himself,  the 
king  of  what  Isaiah  had  called  *'  the  golden  city  "  ^ — a 
King  of  kings,  ruler  over  the  beasts  of  the  field,  and 
the  fowls  of  heaven,  and  the  children  of  men.^ 

'  In  the  four  metals  there  is  perhaps  the  same  underlying  thought 
as  in  the  Hesiodic  and  ancient  conceptions  of  the  four  ages  of  the 
world  (Ewald,  Hist.,  i.  368).  Comp.  the  vision  of  Zoroaster  quoted 
from  Delitzsch  by  Pusey,  p.  97  :  "  Zoroaster  saw  a  tree  from  whose 
roots  sprang  four  trees  of  gold,  silver,  steel,  and  brass  ;  and  Ormuzd 
said  to  him,  '  This  is  the  world  ;  and  the  four  trees  are  the  four 
"times"  which  are  coming.'  After  the  fourth  comes,  according  to 
Persian  doctrine,  Sosiosh,  the  Saviour."  Behrmann  refers  also  to 
Bahman  Yesht  (Spiegel,  Eran.  Alterth.,  ii.  152);  the  Laws  of  Manu 
(Schroder,  Ind.  Lttt.,  448);  and  Roth  {Mythos  von  den  Weltaltern,  i860). 

^  Much  of  the  imagery  seems  to  have  been  suggested  by  Jer.  li. 

^  Comp.  Rev.  xx.  1 1  :  koL  rdiros  ovx  evpeOri  avrois. 

*  Psalm  i.  4,  ii.  9 ;  Isa.  xli.  15  ;  Jer.  li.  t,^,  etc. 

^  Isa.  xiv.  4. 

^  King  of  kings.     Comp.  Ezek.  xxvi.  7  ;  Ezra  vii.  12  ;  Isa,  xxxvi.  4. 


154  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

After  him  should  come  a  second  and  an  inferior  king- 
dom, symboHsed  by  the  arms  and  heart  of  silver. 

Then  a  third  kingdom  of  brass. 

Finally  a  fourth  kingdom,  strong  and  destructive 
as  iron.  But  in  this  fourth  kingdom  was  an  element 
of  weakness,  symbolised  by  the  fact  that  the  feet  are 
partly  of  iron  and  partly  of  weak  clay.  An  attempt 
should  be  made,  by  intermarriages,  to  give  greater 
coherency  to  these  elements  ;  but  it  should  fail,  because 
they  could  not  intermix.  In  the  days  of  these  kings, 
indicated  by  the  ten  toes  of  the  image,  swift  destruction 
should  come  upon  the  kingdoms  from  on  high  ;  for  the 
King  of  heaven  should  set  up  a  kingdom  indestructible 
and  eternal,  which  should  utterly  supersede  all  former 
kingdoms.  ''The  intense  nothingness  and  transitori- 
ness  of  man's  might  in  its  highest  estate,  and  the 
might  of  God's  kingdom,  are  the  chief  subjects  of  this 
vision."  ^ 

Volumes  have  been  written  about  the  four  empires 
indicated  by  the  constituents  of  the  colossus  in  this 
dream  ;  but  it  is  entirely  needless  to  enter  into  them 
at  length.  The  vast  majority  of  the  interpretations 
have  been  simply  due  to  a-priori  prepossessions,  v/hich 
are  arbitrary  and  baseless.  The  object  has  been  to 
make  the  interpretations  fit  in  with  preconceived  theories 
of  prophecy,  and  with  the  traditional  errors  about  the 

It  is  the  Babylonian  Shar-sharrdni,  or  Sharru-rabbu  (Behrmann). 
The  Rabbis  tried  (impossibly)  to  construe  this  title,  which  they  thought 
only  suitable'to  God,  with  the  following  clause.  But  Nebuchadrezzar 
was  so  addressed  (Ezek.  xxvi.  7),  as  the  Assyrian  kings  had  been 
before  him  (Isa.  x.  8),  and  the  Persian  kings  were  after  him  (Ezra 
vii.  12).  The  expression  seems  strange,  but  comp.  Jer.  xxvii.  6, 
xxviii.  14.     The  LXX.  and  Theodotion  mistakenly  interpolate  /^^ues 

'  Pusey,  p.  63. 


THE  DREAM-IMAGE  OF  RUINED  EMPIRES        i55 

date  and  object  of  the  Book  of  Daniel.  If  we  first  see 
the  irresistible  evidence  that  the  Book  appeared  in  the 
days  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and  then  observe  that 
all  its  earthly  ''predictions"  culminate  in  a  minute 
description  of  his  epoch,  the  general  explanation  of  the 
four  empires,  apart  from  an  occasional  and  a  subordinate 
detail,  becomes  perfectly  clear.  In  the  same  way  the 
progress  of  criticism  has  elucidated  in  its  general  out- 
lines the  interpretation  of  the  Book  which  has  been  so 
largely  influenced  by  the  Book  of  Daniel — the  Reve- 
lation of  St.  John.  The  all-but-unanimous  consensus 
of  the  vast  majority  of  the  sanest  and  most  competent 
exegetes  now  agrees  in  the  view  that  the  Apocalypse 
was  written  in  the  age  of  Nero,  and  that  its  tone  and 
visions  were  predominantly  influenced  by  his  persecu- 
tion of  the  early  Christians,  as  the  Book  of  Daniel  was 
by  the  ferocities  of  Antiochus  against  the  faithful  Jews. 
Ages  of  persecution,  in  which  plain-speaking  was  im- 
possible to  the  oppressed,  were  naturally  prolific  of 
apocalyptic  cryptographs.  What  has  been  called  the 
"  futurist "  interpretation  of  these  books — which,  for 
instance,  regards  the  fourth  empire  of  Daniel  as  some 
kingdom  of  Antichrist  as  yet  unmanifested — is  now 
universally  abandoned.  It  belongs  to  impossible  forms 
of  exegesis,  which  have  long  been  discredited  by  the 
boundless  variations  of  absurd  conjectures,  and  by  the 
repeated  refutation  of  the  predictions  which  many  have 
ventured  to  base  upon  these  erroneous  methods.  Even 
so  elaborate  a  work  as  Elliott's  Horce  Apocalypticce 
v/ould  now  be  regarded  as  a  curious  anachronism. 

That  the  first  empire,  represented  by  the  head  of 
gold,  is  the  Babylonian,  concentrated  in  Nebuchadrezzar 
himself,  is  undisputed,  because  it  is  expressly  stated 
by  the  writer  (ii.  37,  38). 


THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


Nor  can  there  be  any  serious  doubt,  if  the  Book  be 
one  coherent  whole,  written  by  one  author,  that  by  the 
fourth  empire  is  meant,  as  in  later  chapters,  that  of 
Alexander  and  his  successors — ''  the  DiadochiJ^  as  they 
are  often  called. 

For  it  must  be  regarded  as  certain  that  the  four 
elements  of  the  colossus,  which  indicate  the  four 
empires  as  they  are  presented  to  the  imagination  of 
the  heathen  despot,  are  closely  analogous  to  the  same 
four  empires  which  in  the  seventh  chapter  present 
themselves  as  wild  beasts  out  of  the  sea  to  the  imagi- 
nation of  the  Hebrew  seer.  Since  the  fourth  empire 
is  there,  beyond  all  question,  that  of  Alexander  and 
his  successors,  the  symmetry  and  purpose  of  the  Book 
prove  conclusively  that  the  fourth  empire  here  is  also 
the  Graeco-Macedonian,  strongl}^  and  irresistibly  founded 
by  Alexander,  but  gradually  sinking  to  utter  weakness 
by  its  own  divisions,  in  the  persons  of  the  kings  who 
split  his  dominion  into  four  parts.  If  this  needed  any 
confirmation,  we  find  it  in  the  eighth  chapter,  which 
is  mainly  concerned  with  Alexander  the  Great  and 
Antiochus  Epiphanes;  and  in  the  eleventh  chapter, 
which  enters  with  startling  minuteness  into  the  wars, 
diplomacy,  and  intermarriages  of  the  Ptolemaic  and 
Seleucid  dynasties.  In  viii.  21  we  are  expressly  told 
that  the  strong  he-goat  is  "  the  King  of  Grecia,"  who 
puts  an  end  to  the  kingdoms  of  Media  and  Persia. 
The  arguments  of  Hengstenberg,  Pusey,  etc.,  that  the 
Greek  Empire  was  a  civilising  and  an  ameliorating 
power,  apply  at  least  as  strongly  to  the  Roman  Empire. 
But  when  Alexander  thundered  his  way  across  the 
dreamy  East,  he  was  looked  upon  as  a  sort  of  shatter- 
ing levin-bolt.  The  interconnexion  of  these  visions 
is  clearly  marked  even  here,  for  the  juxtaposition  of 


THE  DREAM-IMAGE   OF  RUINED  EMPIRES        157 

iron  and  miry  clay  is  explained  by  the  clause  "  they 
shall  mingle  themselves  with  the  seed  of  men  :  ^  but  they 
shall  not  cleave  one  to  another,  even  as  iron  is  not 
mixed  with  clay."  This  refers  to  the  same  attempts 
to  consolidate  the  rival  powers  of  the  Kings  of  Egypt 
and  Syria  which  are  referred  to  in  xi.  6,  7,  and  17.  It 
is  a  definite  allusion  which  becomes  meaningless  in 
the  hands  of  those  interpreters  who  attempt  to  explain 
the  iron  empire  to  be  that  of  the  Romans.  "  That  the 
Greek  Empire  is  to  be  the  last  of  the  Gentile  empires 
appears  from  viii.  17,  where  the  vision  is  said  to  refer 
to  '  the  time  of  the  end.'  Moreover,  in  the  last  vision 
of  all  (x.-xii.),  the  rise  and  progress  of  the  Greek 
Empire  are  related  with  many  details,  but  nothing  what- 
ever is  said  of  any  subsequent  empire.  Thus  to  intro- 
duce the  Roman  Empire  into  the  Book  of  Daniel  is  to 
set  at  naught  the  plainest  rules  of  exegesis."  ^ 

The  reason  of  the  attempt  is  to  make  the  termination 
of  the  prophecy  coincide  with  the  coming  of  Christ,  which 
is  then — quite  unhistorically — regarded  as  followed  by 
the  destruction  of  the  fourth  and  last  empire.  But 
the  interpretation  can  only  be  thus  arrived  at  by  a 
falsification  of  facts.  For  the  victory  of  Christianity 
over  Paganism,  so  decisive  and  so  Divine,  was  in  no 
sense  a  destruction  of  the  Roman  Empire.  In  the  first 
place  that  victory  was  not  achieved  till  three  centuries 
after  Christ's  advent,  and  in  the  second  place  it  was 
rather  a  continuation  and  defence  of  the  Roman  Empire 
than  its  destruction.  The  Roman  Empire,  in  spite  of 
Alaric  and  Genseric  and  Attila,  and  because  of;  its 
alliance  with  Christianity,  may  be  said  to  have  practi- 
cally continued  down  to  modern  times.     So  far  from 

*  Comp.  Jer.  xxxi.  27.  ^  Bevan,  p.  66. 


158  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

being  regarded  as  the  shatterers  of  the  Roman  Empire, 
the  Christian  popes  and  bishops  were,  and  were  often 
called,  the  Defensores  Civitatis.  That  many  of  the 
Fathers,  following  many  of  the  Rabbis,  regarded  Rome 
as  the  iron  empire,  and  the  fourth  wild  beast,  was 
due  to  the  fact  that  until  modern  days  the  science  of 
criticism  was  unknown,  and  exegesis  was  based  on 
the  shifting  sand.^  If  we  are  to  accept  their  authority 
on  this  question,  we  must  accept  it  on  many  others, 
respecting  views  and  methods  which  have  now  been 
unanimously  abandoned  by  the  deeper  insight  and 
advancing  knowledge  of  mankind.  The  influence  of 
Jewish  exegesis  over  the  Fathers — erroneous  as  were 
its  principles  and  fluctuating  as  were  its  conclusions — 
was  enormous.  It  was  not  unnatural  for  the  later 
Jews,  Hving  under  the  hatred  and  oppression  of  Rome, 
and  still  yearning  for  the  fulfilment  of  Messianic  pro- 
mises, to  identify  Romemith  the  fourth  empire.  And 
this  seems  to  have  been  the  opinion  of  Josephus,  what- 
ever that  may  be  worth.  But  it  is  doubtful  whether  it 
corresponds  to  another  and  earlier  Jewish  tradition. 
For  among  the  Fathers  even  Ephraem  Syrus  identifies 
the  Macedonian  Empire  with  the  fourth  empire,  and 
he  may  have  borrowed  this  from  Jewish  tradition. 
But  of  how  little  value  were  early  conjectures  may  be 
seen  in  the  fact  that,  for  reasons  analogous  to  those 
which  had  made  earlier  Rabbis  regard  Rome  as  the 
fourth  empire,  two  mediaeval  exegetes  so  famous  as 
Saadia  the  Gaon  and'Abn  Ezra  had  come  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  the  fourth  empire  was— the  Mohammedan  I  ^ 
Every  detail    of  the  vision    as   regards   the    fourth 

»  The  interpretation  is  first  found,  amid  a  chaos  of  false  exegesis, 
in  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  iv.  4,  §  6. 
'  See  Bevan,  p.  65. 


THE  DREAM-IMAGE  OF  RUINED  EMPIRES        159 

kingdom  is  minutely  in  accord  with  the  kingdom  of 
Alexander.  It  can  only  be  applied  to  Rome  by  deplor- 
able shifts  and  sophistries,  the  untenability  of  which  we 
are  now  more  able  to  estimate  than  was  possible  in 
earlier  centuries.  So  far  indeed  as  the  iron  is  con- 
cerned, that  might  by  itself  stand  equally  well  for 
Rome  or  for  Macedon,  if  Dan.  vii.  7,  8,  viii.  3,  4,  and 
xi.  3  did  not  definitely  describe  the  conquests  of 
Alexander.  But  all  which  follows  is  meaningless  as 
applied  to  Rome,  nor  is  there  anything  in  Roman 
history  to  explain  any  division  of  the  kingdom  (ii.  41), 
or  attempt  to  strengthen  it  by  intermarriage  with  other 
kingdoms  (ver.  43).  In  the  divided  Graeco-Macedonian 
Empires  of  the  Diadochi,  the  dismemberment  of  one 
mighty  kingdom  into  the  four  much  weaker  ones  of 
Cassander,  Ptolemy,  Lysimachus,  and  Seleucus  began 
immediately  after  the  death  of  Alexander  (b.c.  323).  It 
was  completed  as  the  result  of  twenty-two  j^ears  of 
war  after  the  Battle  of  Ipsus  (b.c.  301).  The  marriage 
of  Antiochus  Theos  to  Berenice,  daughter  of  Ptolemy 
Philadelphus  (e.g.  249,  Dan.  xi.  6),  was  as  ineffectual 
as  the  later  marriage  of  Ptolemy  V.  (Epiphanes)  to 
Cleopatra,  the  daughter  of  Antiochus  the  Great  (e.g. 
193),  to  introduce  strength  or  unity  into  the  distracted 
kingdoms  (xi.  17,   18). 

The  two  legs  and  feet  are  possibly  meant  to  indicate 
the  two  most  important  kingdoms — that  of  the  Seleucidae 
in  Asia,  and  that  of  the  Ptolemies  in  Egypt.  If  we 
are  to  press  the  symbolism  still  more  closely,  the  ten 
toes  may  shadow  forth  the  ten  kings  who  are  indicated 
by  the  ten  horns  in  vii,  7. 

Since,  then,  we  are  told  that  the  first  empire  re- 
presents Nebuchadrezzar  by  the  head  of  gold,  and 
since  we  have  incontestably  verified  the  fourth  empire 


i6o  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

to  be  the  Greek  Empire  of  Alexander  and  his  successors, 
it  only  remains  to  identify  the  intermediate  empires  of 
silver  and  brass.  And  it  becomes  obvious  that  they 
can  only  be  the  Median  and  the  Persian.  That  the 
writer  of  Daniel  regarded  these  empires  as  distinct  is 
clear  from  v.  3 1  and  vi. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  silver  is  meant  for  the  Median 
Empire,  because,  closely  as  it  was  allied  with  the 
Persian  in  the  view  of  the  writer  (vi.  9,  13,  16,  viii.  7), 
he  yet  spoke  of  the  two  as  separate.  The  rule  of 
"  Darius  the  Mede,"  not  of  ''  Cyrus  the  Persian,"  is,  in 
his  point  of  view,  the  "  other  smaller  kingdom  "  which 
arose  after  that  of  Nebuchadrezzar  (v.  31).  Indeed, 
this  is  also  indicated  in  the  vision  of  the  ram  (viii.  3) ; 
for  it  has  two  horns,  of  which  the  higher  and  stronger 
(the  Persian  Empire)  rose  up  after  the  other  (the 
Median  Empire) ;  just  as  in  this  vision  the  Persian 
Empire  represented  by  the  thighs  of  brass  is  clearly 
stronger  than  the  Median  Empire,  which,  being  wealthier, 
is  represented  as  being  of  silver,  but  is  smaller  than 
the  other. ^  Further,  the  second  empire  is  represented 
later  on  by  the  second  beast  (vii.  5),  and  the  three 
ribs  in  Jts  mouth  may  be  meant  for  the  three  satrapies 
of  vi.  2. 

It  may  then  be  regarded  as  a  certain  result  of  exegesis 
that  the  four  empires  are — (i)  the  Babylonian;  (2)  the 
Median;  (3)  the  Persian;  (4)  the  Graeco-Macedonian. 

'  On  the  distinction  in  the  writer's  mind  between  the  Median  and 
Persian  Empires  see  v.  28,  31,  vi.  8,  12,  15,  ix.  i,  xi.  I,  compared  with 
vi.  28,  X.  I.  In  point  of  fact,  the  Persians  and  Medians  were  long 
spoken  of  as  distinct,  though  they  were  closely  allied  ;  and  to  the 
Medes  had  been  specially  attributed  the  forthcoming  overthrow  of 
Babylon  :  Jer.  li.  28,  "  Prepare  against  her  the  nations  with  the  kings 
of  the  Medes."  Comp.  Jer.  li.  II,  and  Isa.  xiii.  17,  xxi.  2,  "Besiege, 
O  Media." 


THE  DREAM-IMAGE   OF  RUINED  EMPIRES        i6i 

But  what  is  the  stone  cut  without  hands  which  smote 
the  image  upon  his  feet  ?  It  brake  them  in  pieces,  and 
made  the  collapsing  debris  of  the  colossus  like  chaff 
scattered  by  the  wind  from  the  summer  threshing-floor. 
It  grew  till  it  became  a  great  mountain  which  filled 
the  earth. 

The  meaning  of  the  image  being  first  smitten  upon 
Its  feet  is  that  the  overthrow  falls,  on  the  iron  empire. 

All  alike  are  agreed  that  by  the  mysterious  rock- 
fragment  the  writer  meant  the  Messianic  Kingdom. 
The  **  mountain "  out  of  which  (as  is  here  first 
mentioned)  the  stone  is  cut  is  "the  Mount  Zion."  ^  It 
commences  ^*  in  the  days  of  these  kings ^  Its  origin  is 
not  earthly,  for  it  is  "  cut  without  hands."  It  repre- 
sents *'  a  kingdom  "  which  "  shall  be  set  up  by  the 
God  of  heaven,"  and  shall  destroy  and  supersede  all 
the  kingdoms,  and  shall  stand  for  ever. 

Whether  a  personal  Messiah  was  definitely  pro- 
minent in  the  mind  of  the  writer  is  a  question  which 
will  come  before  us  when  we  consider  the  seventh 
chapter.  Here  there  is  only  a  Divine  Kingdom  ;  and 
that  this  is  the  dominion  of  Israel  seems  to  be  marked 
by  the  expression,  **  the  kingdom  shall  not  be  left  to 
another  people." 

The  prophecy  probably  indicates  the  glowing  hopes 
which  the  writer  conceived  of  the  future  of  his  nation, 
even  in  the  days  of  its  direst  adversity,  in  accordance 
with  the  predictions  of  the  mighty  prophets  his  pre- 
decessors, whose  writings  he  had  recently  studied. 
Very  few  of  those  predictions  have  as  yet  been  literally 
fulfilled ;  not  one  of  them  was  fulfilled  with  such  im- 

'  See  Isa.  ii.  2,  xxviii.  i6;  Matt.  xxi.  42-44.  "  Le  mot  de  Messie 
n'est  pas  dans  Daniel.  Le  mot  de  Meshiach,  ix.  26,  designe  I'autorite 
(probablement  sacerdotale)  de  la  Judee  "  (Renan,  Hist.,  iv.  358). 

II 


1 62  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

mediateness  as  the  prophets  conceived,  when  they  were 
*'  rapt  into  future  times."  To  the  prophetic  vision  was 
revealed  the  glory  that  should  be  hereafter,  but  not  the 
times  and  seasons,  which  God  hath  kept  in  His  ov^n 
power,  and  which  Jesus  told  His  disciples  were  not 
even  known  to  the  Son  of  Man  Himself  in  His  human 
capacity. 

Antiochus  died,  and  his  attempts  to  force  Hellenism 
upon  the  Jews  were  so  absolute  a  failure,  that,  in  point 
of  fact,  his  persecution  only  served  to  stereotype  the 
ceremonial  institutions  which — not  entirely /ro/r/o  motu, 
but  misled  by  men  like  the  false  high  priests  Jason 
and  Menelaus — he  had  attempted  to  obhterate.  But 
the  magnificent  expectations  of  a  golden  age  to  follow 
were  indefinitely  delayed.  Though  Antiochus  died  and 
failed,  the  Jews  became  by  no  means  unanimous  in 
their  religious  policy.  Even  under  the  Hasmonsean 
princes  fierce  elements  of  discord  were  at  work  in  the 
midst  of  them.  Foreign  usurpers  adroitly  used  these 
dissensions  for  their  own  objects,  and  in  B.C.  37  Judaism 
acquiesced  in  the  national  acceptance  of  a  depraved 
Edomite  usurper  in  the  person  of  Herod,  and  a  section 
of  the  Jews  attempted  to  represent  him  as  the  promised 
Messiah  !^ 

Not  only  was  the  Messianic  prediction  unfulfilled  in 
its  literal  aspect  "in  the  days  of  these  kings," ^  but 
even  yet  it  has  by  no  means  received  its  complete 
accomphshment.  The  ''  stone  cut  without  hands " 
indicated  the  kingdom,  not — as  most  of  the  prophets 
seem  to  have  imagined  when  they  uttered  words  which 
meant   more  than   they   themselves   conceived — of  the 

'  See  Kuenen,  The  Prophets,  iii. 

^  No  kings  have  be»n  mentioned,  but  the  ten  toes  symboHse  ten 
kings.     Comp.  vii.  24. 


THE  DREAM-IMAGE   OF  RUINED  EMPIRES        163 

literal  Israel,  but  of  that  ideal  Israel  which  is  composed, 
not  of  Jews,  but  of  Gentiles.  The  divinest  side  of 
Messianic  prophecy  is  the  expression  of  that  unquench- 
able hope  and  of  that  indomitable  faith  which  are 
the  most  glorious  outcome  of  all  that  is  most  Divine 
in  the  spirit  of  man.  That  faith  and  hope  have  never 
found  even  an  ideal  or  approximate  fulfilment  save  in 
Christ  and  in  His  kingdom,  which  is  now,  and  shall 
be  without  end. 

But  apart  from  the  Divine  predictions  of  the  eternal 
sunlight  visible  on  the  horizon  over  vast  foreshortened 
ages  of  time  which  to  God  are  but  as  one  day,  let  us 
notice  how  profound  is  the  symboHsm  of  the  vision — 
how  well  it  expresses  the  surface  glare,  the  inward 
hollowness,  the  inherent  weakness,  the  varying  suc- 
cessions, the  predestined  transience  of  overgrown 
empires.  The  great  poet  of  Catholicism  makes  magni- 
ficent use  of  Daniel's  image,  and  sees  its  deep  signifi- 
cance. He  too  describes  the  ideal  of  all  earthly 
empire  as  a  colossus  of  gold,  silver,  brass,  and  iron, 
which  yet  mainly  rests  on  its  right  foot  of  baked  and 
brittle  clay.  But  he  tells  us  that  every  part  of  this 
image,  except  the  gold,  is  crannied  through  and  through 
by  a  fissure,  down  which  there  flows  a  constant  stream 
of  tears. ^  These  effects  of  misery  trickle  downwards, 
working  their  way  through  the  cavern  in  Mount  Ida  in 
which  the  image  stands,  till,  descending  from  rock  to 
rock,  they  form  those  four  rivers  of  hell, — 

"Abhorred  Styx,  the  flood  of  deadly  hate; 
Sad  Acheron  of  sorrow,  black  and  deep; 
Cocytus,  named  of  lamentation  loud 
Heard  on  the  rueful  stream;  fierce  Phlegethon 
Whose  waves  of  torrent  fire  inflame  with  rage."  ^ 

'  Dante,  Inferno,  xiv.  94-120.         ^  Milton,  Paradise  Lost,  ii.  575. 


164  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

There  is  a  terible  grandeur  in  the  emblem.  Splendid 
and  venerable  looks  the  idol  of  human  empire  in  all 
its  pomp  and  pricelessness.  But  underneath  its  cracked 
and  fissured  weakness  drop  and  trickle  and  stream  the 
salt  and  bitter  runnels  of  misery  and  anguish,  till  the 
rivers  of  agony  are  swollen  into  overflow  by  their 
coagulated  scum. 

It  was  natural  that  Nebuchadrezzar  should  have  felt 
deeply  impressed  when  the  vanished  outlines  of  his 
dream  were  thus  recalled  to  him  and  its  awful  inter- 
pretation revealed.  The  manner  in  which  he  expresses 
his  amazed  reverence  may  be  historically  improbable, 
but  it  is  psychologically  true.  We  are  told  that  "  he 
fell  upon  his  face  and  worshipped  Daniel,"  and  the 
word  ** worshipped"  implies  genuine  adoration.  That 
so  magnificent  a  potentate  should  have  lain  on  his 
face  before  a  captive  Jewish  youth  and  adored  him 
is  amazing.^  It  is  still  more  so  that  Daniel,  without 
protest,  should  have  accepted,  not  only  his  idolatrous 
homage,  but  also  the  offering  of  *'an  oblation  and 
sweet  incense."  ^  That  a  Nebuchadrezzar  should  have 
been  thus  prostrate  in  the  dust  before  their  young 
countryman  would  no  doubt  be  a  delightful  picture 
to  the  Jews,  and  if,  as  w^e  believe,  the  story  is  an 
unconnected  Haggada,  it  may  well  have  been  founded 
on  such  passages  as  Isa.  xlix.  23,  ''  Kings  shall  bow 
down   to  thee  with  their  faces  toward  the  earth,  and 


'  It  may  be  paralleled  by  the  legendary  prostrations  of  Alexander 
the  Great  before  the  high  priest  Jaddua  (Jos.,  Antt.,  XI.  viii.  5),  and 
of  Edwin  of  Deira  before  Paulinus  of  York  (Baeda,  Hist.,  ii.  14-16). 

'"  Isa.  xlvi.  6.  The  same  verbs,  "  they  fall  down,  3'ea  thej'  worship," 
are  there  used  of  idols. 


THE  DREAM-IMAGE   OF  RUINED  EMPIRES        165 

lick  up  the  dust  of  thy  feet "  ;  ^  together  with  Isa.  Hi.  1 5, 
"  Kings  shall  shut  their  mouths  at  him  :  for  that  which 
had  not  been  told  them  shall  they  see ;  and  that  which 
they  had  not  heard  shall  they  perceive." 

But  it  is  much  more  amazing  that  Daniel,  who,  as 
a  boy,  had  been  so  scrupulous  about  the  Levitic 
ordinance  of  unclean  meats,  in  the  scruple  against 
which  the  gravamen  lay  in  the  possibility  of  their 
having  been  offered  to  idols,^  should,  as  a  man,  have 
allowed  himself  to  be  treated  exactly  as  the  king  treated 
his  idols !  To  say  that  he  accepted  this  worship  be- 
cause the  king  was  not  adoring  him^  but  the  God 
whose  power  had  been  manifested  in  him,^  is  an  idle 
subterfuge,  for  that  excuse  is  offered  by  all  idolaters 
in  all  ages.  Very  different  was  the  conduct  of  Paul 
and  Barnabas  when  the  rude  population  of  Lystra 
wished  to  worship  them  as  incarnations  of  Hermes  and 
Zeus.  The  moment  they  heard  of  it  they  rent  their 
clothes  in  horror,  and  leapt  at  once  among  the  people, 
crying  out,  *^  Sirs,  why  do  ye  such  things  ?  We  also 
are  men  of  like  passions  with  you,  and  are  preaching 
unto  you  that  ye  should  turn  from  these  vain  ones  unto 
the  Living  God."'* 

That  the  King  of  Babylon  should  be  represented  as 
at  once  acknowledging  the  God  of  Daniel  as  ''  a  God 

1  Comp.  Isa.  Ix.  14:  "The  sons  also  of  them  that  afflicted  thee 
shall  come  bending  unto  thee ;  and  all  they  that  despised  thee  shall 
bow  themselves  down  at  the  soles  of  thy  feet." 

2  Comp.  Rom.  xiv.  23 ;  Acts  xv.  29 ;  Heb.  xiii  9 ;  I  Cor.  viii.  i  ; 
Rev.  ii.   14,  20. 

^  So  Jerome  :  "  Non  tam  Danielem  quam  in  Daniele  adorat  Deum, 
qui  mysteria  revelavit."  Comp.  Jos.,  Antt.,  XI.  viii.  5,  where  Alexander 
answers  the  taunt  of  Parmenio  about  his  irpoaKTuvrjais  of  the  high 
priest :  oi  tovtov  irpoaeKvvrjtra,  rbv  di  Qeov. 

*-  Acts  xiv.  14,  15. 


i66  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

of  gods,"  though  he  was  a  fanatical  votary  of  Bel- 
merodach,  belongs  to  the  general  plan  of  the  Book. 
Daniel  received  in  reward  many  great  gifts,  and  is 
made  **  ruler  of  all  the  wise  men  of  Babylon,  and  chief 
of  the  governors  [signin]  over  all  the  wise  men  of 
Babylon."  About  his  acceptance  of  the  civil  office 
there  is  no  difficulty ;  but  there  is  a  quite  insuperable 
historic  difficulty  in  his  becoming  a  chief  magian.  All 
the  wise  men  of  Babylon,  whom  the  king  had  just 
threatened  with  dismemberment  as  a  pack  of  impostors, 
were,  at  any  rate,  a  highly  sacerdotal  and  essentially 
idolatrous  caste.  That  Daniel  should  have  objected 
to  particular  kinds  of  food  from  peril  of  defilement,  and 
yet  that  he  should  have  consented  to  be  chief  hierarch 
of  a  heathen  cult,  would  indeed  have  been  to  strain 
at  gnats  and  to  swallow  camels  ! 

And  so  great  was  the  distinction  which  he  earned 
by  his  interpretation  of  the  dream,  that,  at  his  further 
request,  satrapies  were  conferred  on  his  three  com- 
panions ;  but  he  himself,  like  Mordecai,  afterwards  ^*  sat 
in  the  gate  of  the  king."  ^ 

*  Esther  iii.  2.  Comp.  I  Chron.  xxvi.  30.  This  corresponds  to 
what  Xenophon  calls  at  eTrt  rets  dvpas  (poirrjceis,  and  to  our  "  right  of 
enfre'e." 


CHAPTER   III 

THE  IDOL   OF  GOLD,   AND   THE  FAITHFUL    THREE 

"Every  goldsmith  is  put  to  shame  by  his  molten  image:  for  his 
molten  image  is  vanity,  and  there  is  no  breath  in  them.  They  are 
vanity,  a  work  of  delusion  :  in  the  time  of  their  visitation  they  shall 
perish."— Jer.  li.  17,  18. 

"  The  angel  of  the  Lord  encampeth  around  them  that  fear  Him, 
and  shall  deliver  them." — Psalm  xxxiv.  7. 

"  When  thou  walkest  through  the  fire,  thou  shalt  not  be  burnt  ; 
neither  shall  the  flame  kindle  upon  thee." — Isa.  xliii.  2. 

REGARDED  as  an  instance  of  the  use  of  historic 
fiction  to  inculcate  the  noblest  truths,  the  third 
chapter  of  Daniel  is  not  only  superb  in  its  imaginative 
grandeur,  but  still  more  in  the  manner  in  which  it  sets 
forth  the  piety  of  ultimate  faithfulness,  and  of  that 

"Death-defying  utterance  of  truth" 

which  is  the  essence  of  the  most  heroic  and  inspiring 
forms  of  martyrdom.  So  far  from  slighting  it,  because 
it  does  not  come  before  us  with  adequate  evidence  to 
prove  that  it  was  even  intended  to  be  taken  as  literal 
history,  I  have  always  regarded  it  as  one  of  the  most 
precious  among  the  narrative  chapters  of  Scripture. 
It  is  of  priceless  value  as  illustrating  the  deliverance 
of  undaunted  faithfulness — as  setting  forth  the  truth 
that  they  who  love  God  and  trust  in  Him  must  love 
Him  and  trust  in  Him  even  till  the  end,  in  spite  not 
only  of  the  most  overwhelming  peril,  but  even  when 

167 


[68  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


they  are  brought  face  to  face  with  apparently  hopeless 
defeat.  Death  itself,  by  torture  or  sword  or  flame, 
threatened  by  the  priests  and  tyrants  and  multitudes 
of  the  earth  set  in  open  array  against  them,  is  impotent 
to  shake  the  purpose  of  God's  saints.  When  the 
servant  of  God  can  do  nothing  else  against  the  banded 
forces  of  sin,  the  world,  and  the  devil,  he  at  least  can 
die,  and  can  say  like  the  Maccabees,  "  Let  us  die  in  our 
simplicity  I  "  He  may  be  saved  from  death ;  but  even 
if  not,  he  must  prefer  death  to  apostasy,  and  will  save 
his  own  soul.  That  the  Jews  were  ever  reduced  to 
such  a  choice  during  the  Babylonian  exile  there  is  no 
evidence ;  indeed,  all  evidence  points  the  other  way, 
and  seems  to  show  that  they  were  allowed  with  perfect 
tolerance  to  hold  and  practise  their  own  religion.^  But 
in  the  days  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  the  question  which 
to  choose — martyrdom  or  apostasy — became  a  very 
burning  one.  Antiochus  set  up  at  Jerusalem  ^*  the 
abomination  of  desolation,"  and  it  is  easy  to  under- 
stand what  courage  and  conviction  a  tempted  Jew  might 
derive  from  the  study  of  this  splendid  defiance.  That 
the  story  is  of  a  kind  well  fitted  to  haunt  the  imagina- 
tion is  shown  by  the  fact  that  Firdausi  tells  a  similar 
story  from  Persian  tradition  of  "  a  martyr  hero  who 
came  unhurt  out  of  a  fiery  furnace."  ^ 

^  The  false  prophets  Ahab  and  Zedekiah  were  "roasted  in  the  fire" 
(Jer.  xxix.  22),  which  may  have  suggested  the  idea  of  this  punishment 
to  the  writer;  but  it  was  for  committing  "lewdness" — "  folly,"  Judg. 
XX.  6 — in  Israel,  and  for  adultery  and  lies,  which  were  regarded  as 
treasonable.  In  some  traditions  they  are  identified  with  the  two 
elders  of  the  Story  of  Susanna.  Assur-bani-pal  burnt  Samas-sum-ucin, 
his  brother,  who  was  Viceroy  of  Babylon  (about  B.C.  648),  and 
Te-Umman,  who  cursed  his  gods  (Smith,  Assur-bani-pal,  p.  138). 
Comp.  Ewald,  Prophets,  iii.  240.     See  supra,  p.  44. 

^  Malcolm,  Persia,  i.  29,  30. 


THE  IDOL  OF  GOLD,  AND  THE  FAITHFUL  THREE    169 

This  immortal  chapter  breathes  exactly  the  same 
spirit  as  the  forty-fourth  Psalm. 

"  Our  heart  is  not  turned  back, 
Neither  our  steps  gone  out  of  Thy  way: 

No,  not  when  Thou  hast  smitten  us  into  the  place  of  dragons, 
And  covered  us  with  the  shadow  of  death. 
If  we  have  forgotten  the  Name  of  our  God, 
And  holden  up  our  hands  to  any  strange  god, 
Shall  not  God  search  it  out  ? 
For  He  knoweth  the  very  secrets  of  the  heart." 

''  Nebuchadnezzar  the  king,"  we  are  told  in  one  of 
the  stately  overtures  in  which  this  writer  rejoices, 
"  made  an  image  of  gold,  whose  height  was  threescore 
cubits,  and  the  breadth  thereof  six  cubits,  and  he  set 
it  up  in  the  plains  of  Dura,  in  the  province  of  Babylon." 

No  date  is  given,  but  the  writer  may  well  have 
supposed  or  have  traditionally  heard  that  some  such 
event  took  place  about  the  eighteenth  year  of  Nebuchad- 
rezzar's reign,  when  he  had  brought  to  conclusion  a 
series  of  great  victories  and  conquests.^  Nor  are  we 
told  whom  the  image  represented.  We  may  imagine 
that  it  was  an  idol  of  Bel-merodach,  the  patron  deity 
of  Babylon,  to  whom  we  know  that  he  did  erect  an 
image  ;  ^  or  of  Nebo,  from  whom  the  king  derived  his 
name.  When  it  is  said  to  be  *' of  gold,"  the  writer,  in 
the  grandiose  character  of  his  imaginative  faculty,  may 
have  meant  his  words  to  be  taken  literally,  or  he  may 
merely  have  meant  that  it  was  gilded,  or  overlaid  with 

'  Both  in  Theodotion  and  the  LXX.  we  have  ^tovs  dKruiKaidcKdrov. 
The  siege  of  Jerusalem  was  not,  however,  finished  till  the  nineteenth 
year  of  Nebuchadrezzar  (2  Kings  xxv.  8).  Others  conjecture  that 
the  scene  occurred  in  his  thirty-first  year,  when  he  was  "  at  rest  in 
his  house,  and  flourishing  in  his  palace  "  (Dan.  iv.  4). 

^  Records  of  the  Past,  v.  1 13.  The  inscriptions  of  Nebuchadrezzar 
are  full  of  glorification  of  Marduk  (Merodach),  id.,  v.  115,  135,  vii.  75. 


170  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

gold.^  There  were  colossal  images  in  Eg3^pt  and  in 
Nineveh,  but  we  never  read  in  history  of  any  other 
gilded  image  ninety  feet  high  and  nine  feet  broad. ^ 
The  name  of  the  plain  or  valley  in  which  it  was 
erected — Dura — has  been  found  in  several  Babylonian 
localities.^ 

Then  the  king  proclaimed  a  solemn  dedicatory 
festival,  to  which  he  invited  every  sort  of  functionary, 
of  which  the  writer,  with  his  usual  Trvpyoiari?  and 
rotundity  of  expression,  accumulates  the  eight  names. 
They  were : — 

1.  The  Princes,  "  satraps,"  or  wardens  of  the  realm.* 

2.  The  Governors^  (ii.  48). 

3.  The  Captains.^ 

4.  The  Judges.^ 

^  Comp.  Isa.  xliv.  9-20.  Mr.  Hormuzd  Rassan  discovered  a  colossal 
statue  of  Nebo  at  Nimroud  in  1853.  Shalmanezer  III.  says  on  his 
obelisk,  "  I'  made  an  image  of  my  royalty  ;  upon  it  I  inscribed  the 
praise  of  Asshur  my  master,  and  a  true  account  of  my  exploits." 
Herodotus  (i.  183)  mentions  a  statue  of  Zeus  in  Babylon,  on  which 
was  spent  eight  hundred  talents  of  gold,  and  of  another  made  of 
"  solid  gold  "  twelve  ells  high. 

^  By  the  apologists  the  "image  "  or  "  statue  "  is  easily  toned  down 
into  a  bust  on  a  hollow  pedestal  (Archdeacon  Rose,  Speakers  Com- 
mentary, p.  270).  The  colossus  of  Nero  is  said  to  have  been  a  hundred 
and  ten  feet  high,  but  was  of  marble.  Nestle  {Marginalia,  35)  quotes 
a  passage  from  Ammianus  Marcellinus,  which  mentions  a  colossal 
statue  of  Apollo  reared  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  to  which  there  may 
be  a  side-allusion  here. 

^  Schrader,  p.  430  :  Dur-Yagina,  Dur-Sargina,  etc.  LXX.,  kv  irehii^ 
rod  wepL^oXov  ^wpas  Ba^vXcovias. 

*  LXX.  and  Vulg.,  satrapce.  Comp.  Ezra  viii.  36  ;  Esther  iii.  12. 
Supposed  to  be  the  Persian  Khshatra-pawan  (Bevan,  p.  79). 

^  Sigm,  Babylonian  word  (Schrader,  p.  41 1). 

^  LXX.,  Toirapxai.  Comp.  Pechah,  Ezra  v.  14.  An  Ass3^rian  word 
(Schrader,  p.  577). 

^  LXX.,  Tjyovfievci.    Perhaps  the  Persian  endarsgar,  "  or  counsellor." 


THE  IDOL  OF  GOLD,  AND  THE  FAITHFUL  THREE    171 

5.  The  Treasurers  or  Controllers.^ 

6.  The  Counsellors.^ 

7.  The  Sheriffs.^ 

8.  All  the  Rulers  of  the  Provinces. 

Any  attempts  to  attach  specific  values  to  these  titles 
are  failures.  They  seem  to  be  a  catalogue  of  Assyrian, 
Babylonian,  and  Persian  titles,  and  may  perhaps  (as 
Ewald  conjectured)  be  meant  to  represent  the  various 
grades  of  three  classes  of  functionaries — civil,  military, 
and  legal. 

Then  all  these  officials,  who  with  leisurely  stateliness 
are  named  again,  came  to  the  festival,  and  stood  before 
the  image.  It  is  not  improbable  that  the  writer  may 
have  been  a  witness  of  some  such  splendid  ceremony 
to  which  the  Jewish  magnates  were  invited  in  the  reign 
of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.'^ 

Then  a  herald  (kerooza^)  cried  aloud ^  a  proclama- 
tion '*  to  all  peoples,  nations,  and  languages."  Such  a 
throng  might  easily  have  contained  Greeks,  Phoenicians, 
Jews,  Arabs,  and  Assyrians,  as  well  as  Babylonians. 
At  the  outburst  of  a  blast  of  "  boisterous  janizary- 
music  "  they  are  all  to  fall  down  and  worship  the 
golden  image. 

Of  the  six  different  kinds  of  musical  instruments, 
which,  in  his  usual  style,  the  writer  names  and  reiterates. 


'  LXX.,  dLOLKTjrai.  Comp.  Ezra  vii.  21  ;  but  Gratz  thinks  there  is  a 
mere  scribe's  mistake  for  Vae  gadbari  of  vv.  24  and  27. 

^  This  word  is  perhaps  the  old  Persian  databard. 

^  The  word  is  found  here  alone.  Perhaps  "  advisers."  On  these 
words  see  Bevan,  p.  79;  Speaker's  Contmeniary,  pp.  278,  279;  Sayce, 
Assyr.  Gr.,  p.  iio. 

*  E\va\dy  Prophets,  v.  209;  Hist,  v.  294. 

*  The  word  has  often  been  compared  with  the  Greek  Kripv^,  but  the 
root  is  freely  found  in  Assyrian  inscriptions  {Karaz,  "  an  edict "). 

^  Comp.  Rev.  xviii.  2,  Sxpa^ev  h  tVxi^i'. 


172  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

and  which  it  is  neither  possible  nor  very  important  to 
distinguish,  three — the  harp,  psaltery,  and  bagpipe — 
are  Greek ;  two,  the  horn  and  sackbut,  have  names 
derived  from  roots  found  both  in  Aryan  and  Semitic 
languages;  and  one,  "the  pipe,"  is  Semitic.  As  to 
the  list  of  officials,  the  writer  had  added  "  and  all  the 
rulers  of  the  provinces  " ;  so  here  he  adds  *'  and  all 
kinds  of  music."  ^ 

Any  one  who  refused  to  obey  the  order  was  to  be 
flung,  the  same  hour,  into  the  burning  furnace  of  fire. 
Professor  Sayce,  in  his  Hibbert  Lectures ^  connects 
the  whole  scene  with  an  attempt,  first  by  Nebuchad- 
rezzar, then  by  Nabunaid,  to  make  Merodach — who, 
to  conciliate  the  prejudices  of  the  worshippers  of  the 
older  deity  Bel,  was  called  Bel-merodach— the  chief 
deity  of  Babylon.  He  sees  in  the  king's  proclamation 
an  underlying  suspicion  that  some  would  be  found  to 
oppose  his  attempted  centralisation  of  worship.^ 

The  music  burst  forth,  and  the  vast  throng  all  pros- 
trated themselves,  except  Daniel's  three  companions, 
Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abed-nego. 

We  naturally  pause  to  ask  where  then  was  Daniel  ? 
If  the  narrative  be  taken  for  literal  history,  it  is  easy 
to  answer  with  the  apologist  that  he  was  ill;  or  was 
absent;  or  was  a  person  of  too  much  importance 
to  be  required  to  prostrate  himself;  or  that  ''the 
Chaldeans "  were   afraid   to  accuse   him.     ''  Certainly" 


'  See  supra,  p.  22.  The  qarna  (horn,  Kepai)  and  sab'ka  {aaix^vK-q) 
are  in  root  both  Greek  and  Aramean.  The  "pipe"  {masKrokitha) 
is  Semitic.  Brandig  tries  to  prove  that  even  in  Nebuchadrezzar's  time 
these  three  Greek  names  (even  the  symphonia)  had  been  borrov^ed 
by  the  Babylonians  from  the  Greeks ;  but  the  combined  weight  of 
philological  authority  is  against  him. 

^  See  Hibbert  Lectures^  cliap.  Ixxxix.,  etc. 


THE  IDOL  OF  GOLD,  AND  THE  FAITHFUL  THREE    173 

says  Professor  Fuller,  "  had  this  chapter  been  the 
composition  of  a  pseudo-Daniel,  or  the  record  of  a 
fictitious  event,  Daniel  would  have  been  introduced  and 
his  immunity  explained."  Apologetic  literature  abounds 
in  such  fanciful  and  valueless  arguments.  It  would  be 
just  as  true,  and  just  as  false,  to  say  that  "  certainly," 
if  the  narrative  were  historic,  his  absence  would  have 
been  explained ;  and  all  the  more  because  he  was 
expressly  elected  to  be  '4n  the  gate  of  the  king."  But 
if  we  regard  the  chapter  as  a  noble  Haggada^  there  is 
not  the  least  difficulty  in  accounting  for  Daniel's  absence. 
The  separate  stories  were  meant  to  cohere  to  a  certain 
extent ;  and  though  the  writers  of  this  kind  of  ancient 
imaginative  literature,  even  in  Greece,  rarely  trouble 
themselves  with  any  questions  which  lie  outside  the 
immediate  purpose,  yet  the  introduction  of  Daniel  into 
this  story  would  have  been  to  violate  every  vestige 
of  verisimilitude.  To  represent  Nebuchadrezzar  wor- 
shipping Daniel  as  a  god,  and  offering  oblations  to 
him  on  one  page,  and  on  the  next  to  represent  the 
king  as  throwing  him  into  a  furnace  for  refusing  to 
worship  an  idol,  would  have  involved  an  obvious  incon- 
gruity. Daniel  is  represented  in  the  other  chapters 
as  playing  his  part  and  bearing  his  testimony  to  the 
God  of  Israel ;  this  chapter  is  separately  devoted 
to  the  heroism  and  the  testimony  of  his  three 
friends. 

Observing  the  defiance  of  the  king's  edict,  certain 
Chaldeans,  actuated  by  jealousy,  came  near  to  the  king 
and  ^'  accused  "  the  Jews.^ 

The  word  for  "  accused  "  is  curious  and  interesting. 
It  is  literally  '*  ate  the  pieces  of  the  Jews^^  ^  evidently 

'  Comp.  vi.  13,  14.  -  Akaloo  Qartslhm. 


174  T^^  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


involving  a  metaphor  of  fierce  devouring  malice.^  Re- 
minding the  king  of  his  decree,  they  inform  him  that 
three  of  the  Jews  to  whom  he  has  given  such  high  pro- 
motion *'  thought  well  not  to  regard  thee  ;  thy  god  will 
they  not  serve,  nor  worship  the  golden  image  which 
thou  hast  set  up."  ^ 

Nebuchadrezzar,  like  other  despots  who  suffer  from 
the  vertigo  of  autocracy,  was  liable  to  sudden  outbursts 
of  almost  spasmodic  fury. .  We  read  of  such  storms  of 
rage  in  the  case  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  of  Nero,  of 
Valentinian  L,  and  even  of  Theodosius.  The  double 
insult  to  himself  and  to  his  god  on  the  part  of  men  to 
whom  he  had  shown  such  conspicuous  favour  trans- 
ported him  out  of  himself.  For  Bel-merodach,  whom 
he  had  made  the  patron  god  of  Babylon,  was,  as  he 
says  in  one  of  his  own  inscriptions,  "  the  Lord,  the 
joy  of  my  heart  in  Babylon,  which  is  the  seat  of  my 
sovereignty  and  empire."  It  seemed  to  him  too 
intolerable  that  this  god,  who  had  crowned  him  with 
glory  and  victory,  and  that  he  himself,  arrayed  in 
the  plenitude  of  his  imperial  power,  should  be  defied 
and  set  at  naught  by  three  miserable  and  ungrateful 
captives. 

He  puts  it  to  them  whether  it  was  their  set  purpose  ^ 
that  they  would  not  serve  his  gods  or  worship  his 
image.  Then  he  offers  them  a  locus  pceniteniice.  The 
music  should  sound  forth  again.  If  they  would  then 
worship — but   if  not,    they  should  be   flung   into   the 


'  It  is  "found  in  the  Targum  rendering  of  Lev.  xix.  i6  for  a  tale- 
bearer, and  is  frequent  as  a  Syriac  and  Arabic  idiom  "  (Fuller). 

2  Jerome  emphasises  the  element  of  jealousy,  "  Quos  praetulisti 
nobis  et  captivos  ac  servos  principes  fecisti,  ii  elati  in  siiperbiam  tua 
praecepta  contemnunt." 

^  The  phrase  is  unique  and  of  uncertain  meaning. 


THE  IDOL  OF  GOLD,  AND  THE  FAITHFUL  THREE    175 


furnace, — '*  and  who  is  that  God  that  shall  deliver  you 
out  of  my  hands  ?  " 

The  question  is  a  direct  challenge  and  defiance  of  the 
God  of  Israel,  like  Pharaoh's  "And  v/ho  is  Jehovah, 
that  I  should  obey  His  voice  ?  "  or  like  Sennacherib's 
**  Who  are  they  among  all  the  gods  that  have  delivered 
their  land  out  of  my  hand  ?  "  ^  It  is  answered  in  each 
instance  by  a  decisive  interposition. 

The  answer  of  Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abed-nego  is 
truly  magnificent  in  its  unflinching  courage.  It  is  :  **  O 
Nebuchadnezzar,  we  have  no  need  to  answer  thee  a 
word  concerning  this.^  If  our  God  whom  we  serve  be 
able  to  deliver  us,  He  will  deliver  us  from  the  burning 
fiery  furnace,  and  out  of  thy  hand,  O  king.  But  if  not,^ 
be  it  known  unto  thee,  O  king,*  that  we  will  not  serve 
thy  gods,  nor  worship  the  golden  image  which  thou 
hast  set  up." 

By  the  phrase  '*  if  our  God  be  able  "  no  doubt  as  to 
God's  power  is  expressed.  The  word  **  able  "  merely 
means  ''  able  in  accordance  with  His  own  plans."  ^ 
The  three  children  knew  well  that  God  can  deliver,  and 
that  He  has  repeatedly  delivered  His  saints.  Such 
deliverances  abound  on  the  sacred  page,  and  are  men- 
tioned in  the  Dream  of  Gerontius  : — 

**  Rescue  him,  O  Lord,  in  this  his  evil  hour. 
As  of  old  so  many  by  Thy  mighty  power : — 

^  Exod,  V.  2;  Isa.  xxxvi.  20;  2  Chron.  xxxii.  13-17. 

^  Dan.  iii.  16.  LXX.,  oi)  xpei'ai'  ^xo/iej';  Vulg.,  non  oportet  nos.  To 
soften  the  brusqueness  of  the  address,  in  which  the  Rabbis  (e.g. 
Rashi)  rejoice,  the  LXX.  add  another  ^aaiXeO. 

3  Jerome  explains  "  But  if  not  "  by  Quodst  noluerii;  and  Theodoret 
by  el're  o^v  pierai  e'ire  koX  firj. 

*  iii,  18.  LXX.,  Kai  t6t€  <pavep6v  <tol  ^arrai.  Tert.,  from  the  Vet. 
Itala,  "  tunc  manifestum  erit  tibi  "  {Scorp.,  8). 

•^  Comp.Gen.xix.22 :  "I  cannot  do  anything  until  thou  be  come  thither," 


176  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

Enoch  and  Elias  from  the  common  doom  ; 
Noe  from  the  waters  in  a  saving  home ; 
Abraham  from  th'  abounding  guilt  of  Heathenesse, 
Job  from  all  his  multiform  and  fell  distress ; 
Isaac,  when  his  father's  knife  was  raised  to  slay ; 
Lot  from  burning  Sodom  on  its  judgment-day ; 
Moses  from  the  land  of  bondage  and  despair ; 
Daniel  from  the  hungry  lions  in  their  lair ; 
David  from  Golia,  and  the  wrath  of  Saul  ; 
And  the  two  Apostles  from  their  prison-thrall." 

But  the  willing  martyrs  were  also  well  aware  that  in 
many  cases  it  has  not  been  God's  purpose  to  deliver 
His  saints  out  of  the  peril  of  death ;  and  that  it  has 
been  far  better  for  them  that  they  should  be  carried 
heavenwards  on  the  fiery  chariot  of  mart^Tdom.  They 
were  therefore  perfectly  prepared  to  find  that  it  was  the 
will  of  God  that  they  too  should  perish,  as  thousands  of 
God's  faithful  ones  had  perished  before  them,  from  the 
tyrannous  and  cruel  hands  of  man ;  and  they  were 
cheerfully  willing  to  confront  that  awful  extremity. 
Thus  regarded,  the  three  words  "  Andjfnot "  are  among 
the  sublimest  words  uttered  in  all  Scripture  They 
represent  the  truth  that  the  man  who  trusts  in  God  will 
continue  to  say  even  to  the  end,  '*  Though  He  slay  me, 
yet  will  I  trust  in  Him."  They  are  the^Ei'umph  of  faith 
over  all  adverse  circumstances.  It  has  been  the  glorious 
achievement  of  man  to  have  attained,  by  the  inspiration 
of  the  breath  of  the  Almighty,  so  clear  an  insight  into 
the  truth  that  the  voice  of  duty  must  be  obeyed  to 
the  very  end,  as  to  lead  him  to  defy  every  combination 
of  opposing  forces.  The  gay  lyrist  of  heathendom 
expressed  it  in  his  famous  ode, — 

"Justum  et  tenacem  propositi  virum 
Non  civium  ardor  prava  jubentium 
Non  vultus  instantis  tyranni 
Mente  quatit  solida." 


THE  IDOL  OF  GOLD,  AND  THE  FAITHFUL  THREE    177 

It  is  man's  testimony  to  his  indomitable  belief  that 
the  things  of  sense  are  not  to  be  valued  in  comparison 
to  that  high  happiness  which  arises  from  obedience  to 
the  law  of  conscience,  and  that  no  extremities  of  agony 
are  commensurate  with  apostasy.  This  it  is  which, 
more  than  anything  else,  has,  in  spite  of  appearances, 
shown  that  the  spirit  of  man  is  of  heavenly  birth,  and 
has  enabled  him  to  unfold 

"The  wings  within  him  wrapped,  and  proudly  rise 
Redeemed  from  earth,  a  creature  of  the  skies." 

For  wherever  there  is  left  in  man  any  true  manhood, 
he  has  never  shrunk  from  accepting  death  rather  than 
the  disgrace  of  compliance  with  what  he  despises  and 
abhors.  This  it  is  which  sends  our  soldiers  on  the 
forlorn  hope,  and  makes  them  march  with  a  smile  upon 
the  batteries  which  vomit  their  cross-fires  upon  them  ; 
"  :ind  so  die  by  thousands  the  unnamed  demigods." 
By  virtue  of  this  it  has  been  that  all  the  martyrs  have, 
''with  the  irresistible  might  of  their  weakness,"  shaken 
the  solid  world. 

On  hearing  the  defiance  of  the  faithful  Jews — abso- 
lutely firm  in  its  decisiveness,  yet  perfectly  respectful 
in  its  tone — the  tyrant  was  so  rnuch  beside  himself, 
that,  as  he  glared  on  Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abed- 
nego,  his  very  countenance  was  disfigured.  The  furnace 
was  probably  one  used  for  the  ordinary  cremation 
of  the    dead.^     He   ordered   that    it   should  be  heated 


•  Cremation  prevailed  among  the  Accadians,  and  was  adopted  by 
the  Babylonians  (G.  Bertin,  Bab.  and  Orient.  Records,  i.  17-21).  Fire 
was  regarded  as  the  great  purifier.  In  the  Catacombs  the  scene  of 
the  Three  Children  in  the  fire  is  common.     They  are  painted  walking 

12 


178  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

seven  times  hotter  than  it  was  wont  to  be  heated/  and 
certain  men  of  mighty  strength  who  were  in  his  army 
were  bidden  to  bind  the  three  youths  and  fling  them 
into  the  raging  flames.  So,  bound  in  their  hosen,  their 
tunics,  their  long  mantles,^  and  their  other  garments, 
they  were  cast  into  the  seven-times-heated  furnace.  The 
king's  commandment  was  so  urgent,  and  the  ''  tongue 
of  flame "  was  darting  so  fiercely  from  the  horrible 
kiln,  that  the  executioners  perished  in  planting  the 
ladders  to  throw  them  in,  but  they  themselves  fell  into 
the  midst  of  the  furnace. 

The  death  of  the  executioners  seems  to  have  at- 
tracted no  special  notice,  but  immediately  afterwards 
Nebuchadrezzar  started  in  amazement  and  terror  from 
his  throne,  and  asked  his  chamberlains,^  '^  Did  we  not 
cast  three  men  bound  into  the  midst  of  the  fire  ?  " 

*'  True,  O  king,"  they  answered. 


in  a  sort  of  open  cistern  full  of  flames,  with  doors  beneath.  The 
Greek  word  is  Kdfxivos  (Matt.  xiii.  42),  "  a  calcining  furnace." 

'  It  seems  very  needless  to  introduce  here,  as  Mr,  Deane  does  in 
Bishop  Ellicott's  commentary,  the  notion  of  the  seven  Masktm  or 
demons  of  Babylonian  mythology.  In  the  Song  of  the  Three  Children 
the  flames  stream  out  forty-nine  (7  x  7)  cubits.     Comp.  Isa.  xxx.  26. 

2  The  meaning  of  these  articles  of  dress  is  only  conjectural :  they 
are — (i)  Sarbdlin,  perhaps  "trousers,"  LXX.  crapa^dpoL,V\i\^.  braccce  ; 
(2)  Patish,  LXX.  rtdpai,  Vulg.  tiam;  (3)  Kar'bia,  LXX.  TrepLKvrjfjudes, 
Vulg.  cakeamenta.  It  is  useless  to  repeat  all  the  guesses.  Sarbala 
is  a  "tunic"  in  the  Talmud,  Arab,  sirbal)  and  some  connect  Patish 
with  the  Greek  Treraaos.  Judging  from  Assyrian  and  Babylonian 
dress  as  represented  on  the  monuments,  the  youths  were  probably 
clad  in  turbans  (the  Median  KavvaKT]),  an  inner  tunic  (the  Median 
KOiPdvs),  an  outer  mantle,  and  some  sort  of  leggings  {atiaxurides).  It 
is  interesting  to  compare  with  the  passage  the  chapter  of  Herodotus 
(i.  190)  about  the  Babylonian  dress.  He  says  they  wore  a  linen 
tunic  reaching  to  the  feet,  a  woollen  over-tunic,  a  white  shawl,  and 
slippers.     It  was  said  to  be  borrowed  from  the  dress  of  Semiramis. 

^  Chald.,  haddaUrhi ;  LXX.,  01  0iXoi  toO  jSaotXt'ws. 


THE  IDOL  OF  GOLD,  AND  THE  FAITHFUL  THREE    179 

''  Behold/'  he  said,  ''  I  see  four  men  loose^  wa.lking 
in  the  midst  of  the  fire,  and  they  have  no  hurt, 
and  the  aspect  of  the  fourth  is  Hke  a  son  of  the 
gods  I "  1 

Then  the  king  approached  the  door  of  the  furnace  of 
fire,  and  called,  *'  Ye  servants  of  the  Most  High  God,^ 
come  forth."  Then  Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abed-nego 
came  out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire ;  and  all  the  satraps, 
prefects,  presidents,  and  court  chamberlains  gathered 
round  to  stare  on  men  who  were  so  completely  un- 
touched by  the  fierceness  of  the  flames  that  not  a  hair 
of  their  heads  had  been  singed,  nor  their  hosen 
shrivelled,  nor  was  there  even  the  smell  of  burning 
upon  them.^  According  to  the  version  of  Theodotion, 
the  king  worshipped  the  Lord  before  them,  and  he 
then  published  a  decree  in  which,  after  blessing  God 
for  sending  His  angel  to  deliver  His  servants  who 
trusted  in  Him,  he  somewhat  incoherently  ordained 
that  *'  every  people^  nation^  or  language  which  spoke  any 
blasphemy  against  the  God  of  Shadrach,  Meshach,  and 
Abed-nego,  should  he  cut  in  pieces^  and  his  house  made  a 
dunghill :  since  there  is  no  other  god  that  can  deliver 
after  this  sort." 


'  The  A.V.,  "  like  the  Son  of  God,"  is  quite  untenable.  The  expres- 
sion may  mean  a  heavenly  or  an  angelic  being  (Gen.  vi.  2  ;  Job  i.  6). 
So  ordinary  an  expression  does  not  need  to  be  superfluously  illus- 
trated by  references  to  the  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  inscriptions,  but 
they  may  be  found  in  Sayce,  Hibbert  Lectures,  128  Sind  passim. 

'^  LXX.,  0  Qebs  tQu  dedv,  6  iixf/iaros.  Comp.  2  Mace.  iii.  3 1 ;  Mark 
V.  7  ;  Luke  viii.  28;  Acts  xvi.  17,  from  which  it  will  be  seen  that  it 
was  not  a  Jewish  expreseion,  though  it  often  occurs  in  the  Book  of 
Enoch  (Dillmann,  p.  98). 

^  So  in  Persian  history  the  Prince  Siawash  clears  himself  from  a 
false  accusation  in  the  reign  of  his  father  Kai  Kaoos  by  passing 
through  the  fire  (Malcolm,  Hisl.  0/ Persia,  i.  38). 


i8o  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

Then  the  king — as  he  had  done  before — promoted 
Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abed-nego  in  the  province  of 
Babylon.^ 

Henceforth  they  disappear  ahke  from  history,  tradi- 
tion, and  legend ;  but  the  whole  magnificent  Haggada 
is  the  most  powerful  possible  commentary  on  the  words 
of  Isa.  xliii.  2  :  *'  When  thou  walkest  through  the  fire 
thou  shalt  not  be  burned,  neither  shall  the  flame  kindle 
upon  thee."  ^ 

How  powerfully  the  story  struck  the  imagination  of 
the  Jews  is  shown  by  the  not  very  apposite  Song 
of  the  Three  Children,  with  the  other  apocryphal 
additions.  Here  we  are  told  that  the  furnace  was 
heated  ''  with  rosin,  pitch,  tow,  and  small  wood  ;  so  that 
the  flame  streamed  forth  above  the  furnace  forty  and 
nine  cubits.  And  it  passed  through,  and  burned  those 
Chaldeans  it  found  about  the  furnace.  But  the  angel 
of  the  Lord  came  down  into  the  furnace  together  with 
Azarias  and  his  fellows,  and  smote  the  flame  of  the  fire 
out  of  the  oven ;  and  made  the  midst  of  the  furnace  as 
it  had  been  a  moist  whistling  wind,^  so  that  the  fire 
touched  them  not  at  all,  neither  hurt  nor  troubled 
them.'"^ 

In  the  Talmud  the  majestic  limitations  of  the  Biblical 


'  Comp,  Psalm  xvi.  12:  "We  went  through  fire  and  water,  and 
Thou  broughtest  us  out  into  a  safe  place." 

*  Comp.  Gen.  xxiv.  7  ;  Exod.  xxiii.  20;  Deut.  xxxvi.  I.  The  phrase 
applied  to  Joshua  the  high  priest  (Zech.  iii.  2),  "  Is  not  this  a  brand 
plucked  out  of  the  burning?"  originated  the  legend  that,  when  the 
false  prophets  Ahab  and  Zedekiah  had  been  burnt  by  Nebuchadrezzar 
(Jer.  xxix.  22),  Joshua  had  been  saved,  though  singed.  This  and 
other  apocryphal  stories  illustrate  the  evolution  of  Haggadoth  out  of 
metaphoric  allusions. 

^  TTvevjxa  p6tiou  diacr^ipi^ov,  "a  dewy  wind,  whistling  continually." 

*  Song  of  the  Three  Children,  23-27. 


THE  IDOL  OF  GOLD,  AND  THE  FAITHFUL  THREE    i8i 

story  are  sometimes  enriched  with  touches  of  imagina- 
tion, but  more  often  coarsened  by  tasteless  exhibitions 
of  triviahty  and  rancour.  Thus  in  the  Vayyikra  Rabba 
Nebuchadrezzar  tries  to  persuade  the  youths  by  fantastic 
misquotations  of  Isa.  x.  lO,  Ezek.  xxiii.  14,  Deut. 
iv.  28,  Jer.  xxvii.  8  ;  and  they  refute  him  and  end  with 
clumsy  plays  on  his  name,  telling  him  that  he  should 
bark  (nabacK)  like  a  dog,  swell  like  a  water-jar  (co^), 
and  chirp  like  a  cricket  {tsirtsir)^  which  he  immediately 
did — i.e.^  he  was  smitten  with  lycanthropy.^ 

In  Sanhedrin,  f.  93,  I,  the  story  is  told  of  the  adulterous 
false  prophets  Ahab  and  Zedekiah,  and  it  is  added  that 
Nebuchadrezzar  offered  them  the  ordeal  of  fire  from 
which  the  Three  Children  had  escaped.  They  asked 
that  Joshua  the  high  priest  might  be  with  them,  think- 
ing that  his  sanctity  would  be  their  protection.  When 
the  king  asked  why  Abraham,  though  alone,  had  been 
saved  from  the  fire  of  Nimrod,  and  the  Three  Children 
from  the  burning  furnace,  and  yet  the  high  priest 
should  have  been  singed  (Zech.  iii.  2),  Joshua  answered 
that  the  presence  of  two  wicked  men  gave  the  fire 
power  over  him,  and  quoted  the  proverb,  *'  Two  dry 
sticks  kindle  one  green  one." 

In  Pesachin,  f  118,  I,  there  is  a  fine  imaginative  pas- 
sage on  the  subject,  attributed  to  Rabbi  Samuel  of 
Shiloh  :— 

"  In  the  hour  when  Nebuchadrezzar  the  wicked  threw 
Hananiah,  Mishael  and  Azariah  into  the  midst  of  the 
furnace  of  fire,  Gorgemi,  the  prince  of  the  hail,  stood 
before  the  Holy  One  (blessed  be  He  !)  and  said,  *  Lord 
of  the  world,  let  me  go  down  and  cool  the  furnace.' 
*  No,'    answered    Gabriel ;    *  all    men    know    that    hail 

'   Vay.  Rab.,  xxv.  I  (Wunsche,  Bibliotheca  Rabbinica). 


1 82  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

quenches  fire ;  ^  but  I,  the  prince  of  fire,  will  go  down 
and  make  the  furnace  cool  within  and  hot  without,  and 
thus  work  a  miracle  within  a  miracle.'  The  Holy  One 
(blessed  be  He  !)  said  unto  him,  '  Go  down.'  In  the 
self-same  hour  Gabriel  opened  his  mouth  and  said, 
'  And  the  truth  of  the  Lord  endureth  for  ever.' " 

Mr.  Ball,  who  quotes  these  passages  from  Wiinsche's 
Bibliotheca  Rabbinica  in  his  Introduction  to  the  Song 
of  the  Three  Children, ^  very  truly  adds  that  many 
Scriptural  commentators  wholly  lack  the  orientation 
derived  from  the  study  of  Talmudic  and  Midrashic 
literature  which  is  an  indispensable  preliminary  to  a 
right  understanding  of  the  treasures  of  Eastern  thought. 
They  do  not  grasp  the  inveterate  tendency  of  Jewish 
teachers  to  convey  doctrine  by  concrete  stories  and 
illustrations,  and  not  in  the  form  of  abstract  thought. 
**  The  doctrine  is  everything;  the  mode  of  presentation  has 
no  independent  valuey  To  make  the  story  the  first 
consideration,  and  the  doctrine  it  was  intended  to 
convey  an  after-thought,  as  we,  with  our  dry  Western 
literalness  are  predisposed  to  do,  is  to  reverse  the 
Jewish  order  of  thinking,  and  to  inflict  unconscious 
injustice  on  the  authors  of  many  edifying  narratives  of 
antiquity. 

The  part  played  by  Daniel  in  the  apocryphal  Story 
of  Susanna  is  probably  suggested  by  the  meaning  of 
his  name  :  "  Judgment  of  God."  Both  that  story  and 
Bel  and  the  Dragon  are  in  their  way  effective  fictions, 
though  incomparably  inferior  to  the  canonical  part  of 
the  Book  of  Daniel. 

And  the  startling  decree  of  Nebuchadrezzar  finds 
its  analogy  in  the  decree  pubUshed  by  Antiochus  the 

*  Ecclus.  xviii.  i6  :  "  Shall  not  the  dew  assuage  the  heat  ?  " 
2  Speakers  Commentary,  on  the  Apocrypha,  ii.  305-307. 


THE  IDOL  OF  GOLD,  AND  THE  FAITHFUL  THREE    183 

Great  to  all  his  subjects  in  honour  of  the  Temple  at 
Jerusalem,  in  which  he  threatened  the  infliction  of  heavy 
fines  on  any  foreigner  who  trespassed  within  the  limits 
of  the  Holy  Court/ 

'  Jos.,  Antt.,  XII.  iii.  3 ;  Jahn,  Hebr.  Commonwealth,  §  xc. 


CHAPTER   IV 

THE  BABYLONIAN  CEDAR,   AND    THE  STRICKEN 
DESPOT 

"  Pride  goeth  before  destruction,  and  a  haughty  spirit  before  a 
fall." — Prov.  xvi.  1 8. 

THRICE  already,  in  these  magnificent  stories,  had 
Nebuchadrezzar  been  taught  to  recognise  the 
existence  and  to  reverence  the  power  of  God.  In  this 
chapter  he  is  represented  as  having  been  brought  to 
a  still  more  overwhelming  conviction,  and  to  an  open 
acknowledgment  of  God's  supremacy,  by  the  lightning- 
stroke  of  terrible  calamity. 

The  chapter  is  dramatically  thrown  into  the  form  of 
a  decree  which,  after  his  recovery  and  shortly  before 
his  death,  the  king  is  represented  as  having  promul- 
gated to  ''  all  people,  nations,  and  languages  that  dwell 
in  all  the  earth."  ^  But  the  hterary  form  is  so  abso- 
lutely subordinated  to  the  general  purpose — which  is 
to  show  that  where  God's  **  judgments  are  in  the  earth 
the  inhabitants  of  the  earth  will  learn  righteousness,"  ''^ 
— that  the  writer  passes  without  any  difficulty  from  the 
first  to  the  third  person  (iv.  20-30).  He  does  not 
hesitate  to  represent  Nebuchadrezzar  as  addressing  all 

*  Comp.  I  Mace,  i,  41,  42:  "And  the  king  [Antiochus  Epiphanes] 
wrote  to  his  whole  kingdom,  that  all  should  be  one  people,  and  every 
one  should  leave  his  laws." 

^  Isa.  xxvi.  9. 

184 


BABYLONIAN  CEDAR,  AND  THE  STRICKEN  DESPOT   185 

the  subject  nations  in  favour  of  the  God  of  Israel,  even 
placing  in  his  imperial  decree  a  cento  of  Scriptural 
phraseology. 

Readers  unbiassed  by  a-priori  assumptions,  which 
are  broken  to  pieces  at  every  step,  will  ask,  ''  Is  it 
even  historically  conceivable  that  Nebuchadrezzar  (to 
whom  the  later  Jews  commonly  gave  the  title  of 
Ha-Rashang,  '  the  wicked  ')  could  ever  have  issued  such 
a  decree  ?  "  ^  They  will  further  ask,  "  Is  there  any 
shadow  of  evidence  to  show  that  the  king's  degrading 
madness  and  recovery  rest  upon  any  real  tradition  ?  " 

As  to  the  monuments  and  inscriptions,  they  are 
entirely  silent  upon  the  subject ;  nor  is  there  any  trace 
of  these  events  in  any  historic  record.  Those  who, 
with  the  school  of  Hengstenberg  and  Pusey,  think  that 
the  narrative  receives  support  from  the  phrase  of 
Berossus  that  Nebuchadrezzar  ^'  fell  sick  and  departed 
this  life  when  he  had  reigned  forty-three  years,"  must 
be  easily  satisfied,  since  he  says  very  nearly  the  same 
of  Nabopolassar.^  Such  writers  too  much  assume  that 
im.memorial  prejudices  on  the  subject  have  so  com- 
pletely weakened  the  independent  intelligence  of  their 
readers,  that  they  may  safely   make  assertions  which. 


'  Professor  Fuller  follows  them  in  supposing  that  the  decree  is  really 
a  letter  written  by  Daniel,  as  is  shown  by  the  analogy  of  similar 
documents,  and  the  attestation  (!)  of  the  LXX.  (dpxri  ttjs  iincrToXijs) . 
He  adds,  "The  undertone  of  genuineness  which  makes  itself  so 
inobtrusively  felt  to  the  Assyrian  scholar  when  reading  it,  is  qtii'fe 
sufficient  to  decide  the  question  of  authenticity  "  !  Such  remarks  are  meant 
only  for  a  certain  circle  of  readers  already  convinced.  If  they  were 
true,  it  would  be  singular  that  scarcely  one  living  Assyriologist 
accepts  the  authenticity  of  Daniel ;  and  Mr.  Bevan  calls  this  "  a 
narrative  which  contains  scarcely  anything  specifically  Babylonian^ 

^  See  Jos.  c.  Ap.,  I.  20,  e/xTrecroJv  els  appwariav,  /werT/XXd^aro  top  ^lov 
(of  Nebuchadrezzar) ;  and  1.  19  of  Nabopolassar. 


1 86  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

in  matters  of  secular  criticism,  would  be  set  aside  as 
almost  childishly  nugatory. 

It  is  different  with  the  testimony  of  Abydenus,  quoted 
by  Eusebius.^  Abydenus,  in  his  book  on  the  Assyrians, 
quoted  from  Megasthenes  the  story  that,  after  great 
conquests,  "  Nebuchadrezzar  "  (as  the  Chaldean  story 
goes),  ^^  when  he  had  ascended  the  roof  of  his  palace, 
was  inspired  by  some  god  or  other,  and  cried  aloud,  *  I, 
Nebuchadrezzar,  announce  to  you  the  future  calamity 
which  neither  Bel  my  ancestor,  nor  our  queen  Beltis, 
can  persuade  the  Fates  to  avert.  There  shall  come 
a  Persian,  a  mule,  who  shall  have  your  own  gods  as 
his  allies,  and  he  shall  make  you  slaves.  Moreover, 
he  who  shall  help  to  bring  this  about  shall  be  the  son 
of  a  Median  woman,  the  boast  of  the  Assyrian.  Would 
that  before  his  countrymen  perish  some  whirlpool  or 
flood  might  seize  him  and  destroy  him  utterly  ;  ^  or 
else  would  that  he  might  betake  himself  to  some  other 
place,  and  might  be  driven  to  the  desert,  where  is  no  city 
nor  track  of  men,  where  wild  beasts  seek  their  food  and 
birds  fly  hither  and  thither  I  Would  that  among  rocks 
and  mountain  clefts  he  might  wander  alone  !  And  as 
for  me,  may  I,  before  he  imagines  this,  meet  with  some 
happier  end  ! '  When  he  had  thus  prophesied,  he  suddenly 
vanished^ 

I  have  italicised  the  passages  which,  amid  immense 
differences,  bear  a  remote  analogy  to  the  story  of  this 
chapter.  To  quote  the  passage  as  any  proof  that  the 
writer  of  Daniel  is  narrating  literal  history  is  an  extra- 
ordinary misuse  of  it. 

Megasthenes  flourished  B.C.  323,  and  wrote  a  book 

^  Prcep.  Ev.,  Ix.  41. 

-  I  follow  the  better  readings  which  Mr.  Bevan  adopts  from  Von 
Gutschmid  and  Toup. 


BABYLONIAN  CEDAR,  AND  THE  STRICKEN  DESPOT   187 


which  coniaiiied  many  fabulous  stories,  three  centuries 
after  the  events  to  which  he  alludes.  Abydenus,  author 
of  AssynacGy  was  a  Greek  liistorian  of  still  later,  and 
uncertain,  date.  The  writer  of  Daniel  may  have  met 
with  their  works,  or,  quite  independently  of  them,  he 
may  have  learned  from  the  Babylonian  Jews  that  there 
was  sojue  strange  legend  or  other  about  the  death  of 
Nebuchadrezzar.  The  Jews  in  Babylonia  were  more 
numerous  and  more  distinguished  than  those  in  Pales- 
tine, and  kept  up  constant  communication  with  them. 
So  far  from  any  historical  accuracy  about  Babylon  in 
a  Palestinian  Jew  of  the  age  of  the  Maccabees  being 
strange,  or  furnishing  any  proof  that  he  was  a  con- 
temporary of  Nebuchadrezzar,  the  only  subject  of 
astonishment  would  be  that  he  should  have  fallen  into 
so  many  mistakes  and  inaccuracies,  were  it  not  that 
the  ancients  in  general,  and  the  Jews  particularly,  paid 
little  attention  to  such  matters. 

Aware,  then,  of  some  dim  traditions  that  Nebuchad- 
rezzar at  the  close  of  his  life  ascended  his  palace  roof 
and  there  received  some  sort  of  inspiration,  after  which 
he  mysteriously  disappeared,  the  writer,  giving  free 
play  to  his  imagination  for  didactic  purposes,  after  the 
common  fashion  of  his  age  and  nation,  worked  up 
these  slight  elements  into  the  stately  and  striking 
Midrash  of  this  chapter.  He  too  makes  the  king  mount 
his  palace  roof  and  receive  an  inspiration  ;  but  in  his 
pages  the  inspiration  does  not  refer  to  'Hhe  mule" 
or  half-breed,  Cyrus,  nor  to  Nabunaid,  the  son  of  a 
Median  woman,  nor  to  any  imprecation  pronounced 
upon  them,  but  is  an  admonition  to  himself ;  and  the 
imprecation  which  he  denounced  upon  the  future 
subverters  of  Babylon  is  dimly  analogous  to  the  fate 
which  fell  on  his  own  head.     Instead  of  making  him 


1 88  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

"  vanish "  immediateiy  afterwards,  the  writer  makes 
him  fall  into  a  beast-madness  for  '^  seven  times/'  after 
which  he  suddenly  recovers  and  publishes  a  decree 
that  all  mankind  should  honour  the  true  God. 

Ewald  thinks  that  a  verse  has  been  lost  at  the 
beginning  of  the  chapter,  indicating  the  nature  of  the 
document  which  follows  ;  but  it  seems  more  probable 
that  the  author  began  this,  as  he  begins  other  chapters, 
with  the  sort  of  imposing  overture  of  the  first  verse. 

Like  Assur-bani-pal  and  the  ancient  despots,  Nebu- 
chadrezzar addresses  himself  to  "  all  people  in  the 
earth,"  and  after  the  salutation  of  peace  ^  says  that 
he  thought  it  right  to  tell  them  ''  the  signs  and  wonders 
that  the  High  God  hath  wrought  towards  me.  How 
great  are  His  signs,  and  how  mighty  are  His  wonders  ! 
His  kingdom  is  an  everlasting  kingdom,  and  His 
dominion  is  from  generation  to  generation."^ 

He  goes  on  to  relate  that,  while  he  was  at  ease  and 
secure  in  his  palace,^  he  saw  a  dream  which  affrighted 
him,  and  left  a  train  of  gloomy  forebodings.  As  usual  he 
summoned  the  whole  train  of  Khakhamim,  Ashshaphim^ 
Mekashshaphinij  Kasdini,  Chartummim^  and  Gazerim^ 
to  interpret  his  dream,  and  as  usual  they  failed  to  do 
so.  Then  lastly,  Daniel,  surnamed  Belteshazzar,  after 
Bel,  Nebuchradrezzar's  god,"*  and  *'  chief  of  the 
magicians,"  °  in  whom  was  ''  the  spirit  of  the  holy 
gods,"  is  summoned.     To  him  the  king  tells  his  dream. 

'  Comp.  Ezra  iv.  7,  vii.  12. 

^  If  Nebuchadrezzar  wrote  this  edict,  he  must  have  been  very 
familiar  with  the  language  of  Scripture.  See  Deut.  vi.  22 ;  Isa. 
viii.  18;  Psalm  Ixxviii.  12-16,  cvi.  2;  Mic.  iv.  7,  etc. 

^  Heykal,  "palace";  Bab.,  ikallu.  Comp,  Amos  viii.  3.  See  the 
palace  described  in  Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon, 

^  A  mistake  of  the  writer.     See  supra,  p.  129. 

*  Rab-chartummaya. 


BABYLONIAN  CEDAR,  AND  THE  STRICKEN  DESPOT   189 

The  writer  probably  derives  the  images  of  the  dream 
from  the  magnificent  description  of  the  King  of  Assyria 
as  a  spreading  cedar  in  Ezek.  xxxi.  3-18  : — 

*'  Behold,  the  Ass3^rian  was  a  cedar  in  Lebanon  with 
fair  branches,  and  with  a  shadowing  shroud,  and  of 
an  high  stature  ;  and  his  top  was  among  the  thick 
boughs.  The  waters  nourished  him,  the  deep  made  him 
to  grow.  .  .  .  Therefore  his  stature  was  exalted  above 
all  the  trees  of  the  field;  and  his  boughs  were  multiplied, 
and  his  branches  became  long  by  reason  of  many 
waters.  All  the  fowls  of  the  air  made  their  nests  in 
his  boughs,  and  under  his  branches  did  all  the  beasts 
of  the  field  bring  forth  their  young,  and  under  his 
shadow  dwelt  all  great  nations.  .  .  .  The  cedars  in 
the  garden  of  God  could  not  hide  him  .  .  .  nor  was  any 
tree  in  the  garden  of  God  like  him  in  his  beauty.  .  .  . 
Therefore  thus  saith  the  Lord  God  :  Because  thou  art 
exalted  in  stature  ...  I  will  deliver  him  into  the  hand 
of  the  mighty  one  of  the  nations.  .  .  .  And  strangers, 
the  terrible  of  the  nations,  have  cut  him  ofi",  and  have 
left  him.  Upon  the  mountains  and  in  all  the  valleys 
his  branches  are  broken  .  .  .  and  all  the  people  of  the 
earth  are  gone  down  from  his  shadow,  and  have  left 
him.  ...  I  made  the  nations  to  shake  at  the  sound  of 
his  fall." 

We  may  also  compare  this  dream  with  that  of 
Cambyses  narrated  by  Herodotus  ^  :  ''He  fancied  that 
a  vine  grew  from  the  womb  of  his  daughter  and 
overshadowed  the  whole  of  Asia.  .  .  .  The  magian 
interpreter  expounded  the  vision  to  foreshow  that  the 
ofispring  of  his  daughter  would  reign  over  Asia  in 
his  stead." 

^  Herod.,  i.  108. 


igo  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

So  too  Nebuchadrezzar  in  his  dream  had  seen  a 
tree  in  the  midst  of  the  earth,  of  stately  height,  which 
reached  to  heaven  and  overshadowed  the  world,  with 
fair  leaves  and  abundant  fruit,  giving  large  nourishment 
to  all  mankind,  and  shade  to  the  beasts  of  the  field 
and  fowls  of  the  heaven.  The  LXX.  adds  with  glowing 
exaggeration,  "The  sun  and  moon  dwelled  in  it,  and 
gave  light  to  the  whole  earth.  And,  behold,  a  watcher 
['f^]  ^  and  a  holy  one  \_qaddish']  ^  came  down  from 
heaven,  and  bade,  Hew  down,  and  lop,  and  strip  the 
tree,  and  scatter  his  fruit,  and  scare  away  the  beasts 
and  birds  from  it,  but  leave  the  stump  in  the  greening 
turf  bound  by  a  band  of  brass  and  iron,  and  let  it 
be  wet  with  heaven's  dews," — and  then,  passing  from 
the  image  to  the  thing  signified,  '*  and  let  his  portion 
be  with  the  beasts  in  the  grass  of  the  earth.  Let  his 
heart  be  changed  from  man's,  and  let  a  beast's  heart 
be  given  unto  him,  and  let  seven  times  pass  over 
him."  We  are  not  told  to  whom  the  mandate  is  given 
— that  is  left  magnificently  vague.  The  object  of  this 
"  sentence  of  the  watchers,  and  utterance  of  the  holy 
ones,"  is  that  the  living  may  know  that  the  Most  High 
is  the  Supreme  King,  and  can,  if  He  will,  give  rule 
even  to  the  lowliest.  Nebuchadrezzar,  who  tells  us 
in  his  inscription  that  "  he  never  forgave  impiety,"  has 
to  learn  that  he  is  nothing,  and  that  God  is  all, — that 
''He  pulleth  down  the  mighty  from  their  seat,  and 
exalteth  the  humble  and  meek."^ 


'  T*!;.  Comp.  Mai.  ii.  12  (perhaps  "the  watchman  and  him  that 
answereth").     LXX.,  (it7-yeXos ;  Theodot.,  e7/)^7o/uos. 

■^  Comp.  Deut.  xxxiii.  2 ;  Zeeh.  xiv.  5;  Psalm  Ixxxix.  6;  Job  v.  I,  etc. 

^  The  LXX.,  in  its  free  manipulation  of  the  original,  adds  that  the 
king  saw  the  dream  fulfilled.  In  one  day  the  tree  was  cut  down,  and 
its  destruction  completed  in  one  hour. 


BABYLONIAN  CEDAR,  AND  THE  STRICKEN  DESPOT   191 

This  dream  Nebuchadrezzar  bids  Daniel  to  interpret, 
"  because  thou  hast  the  spirit  of  a  Holy  God  in  thee." 

Before  we  proceed  let  us  pause  for  a  moment  to 
notice  the  agents  of  the  doom.  It  is  one  of  the  never- 
sleeping  ones — an  'fr  and  a  holy  one — who  flashes 
down  from  heaven  with  the  mandate ;  and  he  is  only 
the  mouthpiece  of  the  whole  body  of  *the  watchers  and 
holy  ones. 

Generally,  no  doubt,  the  phrase  means  an  angelic 
denizen  of  heaven.  The  LXX.  translates  watcher  by 
''angel."  Theodotion,  feeling  that  there  is  something 
technical  in  the  word,  which  only  occurs  in  this  chapter, 
renders  it  by  elp.  This  is  the  first  appearance  of  the 
term  in  Jewish  literature,  but  it  becomes  extremely 
common  in  later  Jewish  writings — as,  for  instance,  in 
the  Book  of  Enoch.  The  term  "  a  holy  one  "  ^  connotes 
the  dedicated  separation  of  the  angels  ;  for  in  the  Old 
Testament  holiness  is  used  to  express  consecration  and 
setting  apart,  rather  than  moral  stainlessness.^  The 
''  seven  watchers "  are  alluded  to  in  the  post-exilic 
Zechariah  (iv.  10):  ''They  see  with  joy  the  plummet 
in  the  hand  of  Zerubbabel,  even  those  seven,  the  eyes  of 
the  Lord ;  they  run  to  and  fro  through  the  whole 
earth."  In  this  verse  Kohut  ^  and  Kuenen  read 
"  watchers  "  ('trtm)  for  "  eyes  "  (^tmm)y  and  we  find  these 
seven  watchers  in  the  Book  of  Enoch  (chap.  xx.).  We 
see  as  an  historic  fact  that  the  familiarity  of  the  Jews 
with  Persian  angelology  and  demonology  seems  to  have 
developed  their  views  on  the  subject.  It  is  only  after 
the  Exile  that  we  find  angels  and  demons  playing  a 
more  prominent  part  than  before,  divided  into  classes, 

'  Comp.  Zech.  xiv.  5 ;  Psalm  Ixxxix.  6, 

^  See  Job  xv.  15. 

^  Dr.  A.  Kchut,  Die  jiidische  Angelologie,  p.  6,  n.  17. 


192 


THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


and  even  marked  out  by  special  names.  The  Apo- 
crypha becomes  more  precise  than  the  canonical  books, 
and  the  later  pseudepigraphic  books,  which  advance  still 
further,  are  left  behind  by  the  Talmud.  Some  have 
supposed  a  connexion  between  the  seven  watchers 
and  the  Persian  amschashpands}  The  shedim^  or  evil 
spirits,  are  also  seven  in  number, — 

"  Seven  are  they,  seven  are  they ! 
In  the  channel  of  the  deep  seven  are  they, 
In  the  radiance  of  heaven  seven  are  they!"- 

It  is  true  that  in  Enoch  (xc.  91)  the  prophet  sees 
^*  the  first  six  v/hite  ones,"  and  we  find  six  also  in 
Ezek.  ix.  2.  On  the  other,  hand,  we  find  seven  in 
Tobit :  *'  I  am  Raphael,  one  of  the  seven  holy  angels 
which  present  the  prayers  of  the  saints,  and  which  go 
in  and  out  before  the  glory  of  the  Holy  One."  ^  The 
names  are  variously  given  ;  but  perhaps  the  commonest 
are  Michael,  Gabriel,  Uriel,  Raphael,  and  Raguel.* 
In  the  Babylonian  mythology  seven  deities  stood  at 
the  head  of  all  Divine  beings,  and  the  seven  planetary 
spirits  watched  the  gates  of  Hades.^ 

To  Daniel,  when  he  had  heard  the  dream,  it  seemed 
so    full   of  portentous  omen  that  "  he  was  astonished 


'  For  a  full  examination  of  the  subject  see  Oehler,  Theol.  of  the 
O.  r.,  §  59,  pp.  195  ff-;  Schultz,  Alttest.  Theol.,  p.  555;  Hamburger, 
Real-Encycl.y  i.,  s.v.  "Engel";  Professor  Fuller,  Speaker's  Commen- 
tary., on  the  Apocrypha,  Tobit,  i.,  171-183. 

2  Sayce,  Records  of  the  Past,  ix.  140. 

^  The  number  seven  is  not,  how^ever,  found  in  all  texts. 

*  The  Jewish  tradition  admits  that  the  names  of  the  angels  came 
from  Persia  (Rosh  Hashanah,  f.  56,  I  ;  Bereshtth  Rabba,  c.  48 ; 
Riehm,  R.   W.  B.,  i.  381). 

^  Descent  of  Ishtar,  Records  of  the  Past,  i,  141.  Botta  found  seven 
rude  figures  buried  under  the  thresholds  of  doors. 


BABYLONIAN  CEDAR,  AND]  THE  STRICKEN  DESPOT   193 


for  one  hour."  ^  Seeing  his  agitation,  the  king  bids 
him  take  courage  and  fearlessly  interpret  the  dream. 
But  it  is  an  augury  of  fearful  visitation  ;  so  he  begins 
with  a  formula  intended  as  it  were  to  avert  the  threatened 
consequences.  ''  My  Lord,"  he  exclaimed,  on  recover- 
ing voice,  ''  the  dream  be  to  them  that  hate  thee,  and 
the  interpretation  to  thine  enemies."  ^  The  king  would 
regard  it  as  a  sort  of  appeal  to  the  averting  deities 
(the  Roman  Di  Avemmci),  and  as  analogous  to  the 
current  formula  of  his  hymns,  *'  From  the  noxious 
spirit  may  the  King  of  heaven  and  the  king  of  earth 
preserve  thee ! "  ^  He  then  proceeds  to  tell  the  king 
that  the  fair,  stately,  sheltering  tree — **it  is  thou,  O 
king  " ;  and  the  interpretation  of  the  doom  pronounced 
upon  it  is  that  he  should  be  driven  from  men,  and 
should  dwell  with  the  beasts  of  the  field,  and  be 
reduced  to  eat  grass  like  the  oxen,  and  be  wet  with  the 
dew  of  heaven,  *'  and  seven  times  shall  pass  over  thee, 
till  thou  shalt  know  that  the  Most  High  ruleth  in  the 
kingdom  of  men,  and  giveth  it  to  whomsoever  He  will." 
But  as  the  stump  of  the  tree  was  to  be  left  in  the  fresh 
green  grass,  so  the  kingdom  should  be  restored  to  him 
when  he  had  learnt  that  the  Heavens  do  rule. 

The  only  feature  of  the  dream  which  is  left  uninter- 
preted is  the  binding  of  the  stump  with  bands  of  iron 
and  brass.  Most  commentators  follow  Jerome  in  making 
it  refer  to  the  fetters  with  which  maniacs  are  bound,* 

^  The  Targum  understands  it  ''for  a  moment." 

^  The  wish  was  quite  natural.  It  is  needless  to  follow  Rashi,  etc.,  in 
making  this  an  address  to  God,  as  though  it  were  a  prayer  to  Him 
that  ruin  might  fall  on  His  enemy  Nebuchadrezzar.  Comp.  Ov.,  Fast., 
iii.  494  :  "  Eveniat  nostris  hostibus  ille  color." 

^  Records  of  the  Past,  i.  133. 

••  Mark  v.  3. 

13 


194  THE  BOOK   OF  DANIEL 

but  there  is  no  evidence  that  Nebuchadrezzar  was  so 
restrained,  and  the  bands  round  the  stump  are  for  its 
protection  from  injury.  This  seems  preferable  to  the 
view  which  explains  them  as  *'  the  stern  and  crushing 
sentence  under  which  the  king  is  to  lie."^  Josephus 
and  the  Jewish  exegetes  take  the  ''  seven  times  "  to  be 
^'  seven  years  "  ;  but  the  phrase  is  vague,  and  the  event 
is  evidently  represented  as  taking  place  at  the  close  of 
the  king's  reign.  Instead  of  using  the  awful  name 
of  Jehovah,  the  prophet  uses  the  distant  periphrasis  of 
*'  the  Heavens."  It  was  a  phrase  which  became  common 
in  later  Jewish  literature,  and  a  Babylonian  king  would 
be  familiar  with  it ;  for  in  the  inscriptions  we  find 
Maruduk  addressed  as  the  "  great  Heavens,"  the  father 
of  the  gods.^ 

Having  faithfully  interpreted  the  fearful  warning  of 
the  dream,  Daniel  points  out  that  the  menaces  of  doom 
are  sometimes  conditional,  and  may  be  averted  or  de- 
layed. ''Wherefore/'  he  says,  "  O  king,  let  m^^  counsel 
be  acceptable  unto  thee,  and  break  off  th}^  sins  by  righ- 
teousness, and  thine  iniquities  by  showing  mercy  to  the 
poor ;  if  so  be  there  may  be  a  healing  of  thy  error."  ^ 

This  pious  exhortation  of  Daniel  has  been  severely 
criticised  from  opposite  directions. 

The  Jewish  Rabbis,  in  the  very  spirit  of  bigotry  and 
false  religion,  said  that  Daniel  was  subsequently  thrown 
into  the  den  of  lions  to  punish  him  for  the  crime  of 
tendering  good  advice  to  Nebuchadrezzar ;  ^  and,  more- 

'  Bevan,  p.  92. 

'  In  the  Mishnah  often  Shatnayiw  ;  N.  T.,  i]  ^aalXeia  tCcv  ovpavQp. 

^  Or,  as  in  A.V.  and  Hitzig,  "if  it  may  be  a  lengthening  of  thy 
tranquillity";  but  Ewald  reads  a?'ukahy  "healing"  (Isa.  Iviii,  8),  for 
ar'kah. 

^  Baba  Baihia,  f.  4,  I 


BABYLONIAN  CEDAR,  AND  THE  STRICKEN  DESPOT  195 

over,  the  advice  could  not  be  of  any  real  use  ;  "  for  even 
if  the  nations  of  the  world  do  righteousness  and  mercy 
to  prolong  their  dominion,  it  is  only  sin  to  them."  ^ 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Roman  Catholics  have  made 
it  their  chief  support  for  the  doctrine  of  good  works, 
which  is  so  severely  condemned  in  the  twelfth  of  our 
Articles. 

Probably  no  such  theological  questions  remotely 
entered  into  the  mind  of  the  writer.  Perhaps  the  words 
should  be  rendered  "  break  off  thy  sins  by  righteous- 
ness," rather  than  (as  Theodotion  renders  them) 
''  redeem  thy  sins  by  almsgiving."  ^  It  is,  however, 
certain  that  among  the  Pharisees  and  the  later  Rabbis 
there  was  a  grievous  limitation  of  the  sense  of  the 
word  tzedakah,  *'  righteousness,"  to  mean  merely  alms- 
giving. In  Matt.  vi.  i  it  is  well  known  that  the 
reading  ''alms"  {iXerjfMocrvvrjv)  has  in  the  received  text 
displaced  the  reading  "righteousness"  (ScKaioavvTjv) ; 
and  in  the  Talmud  **  righteousness  " — like  our  shrunken 
misuse  of  the  word  *'  charity  " — means  almsgiving.  The 
value  of  ''  alms  "  has  often  been  extravagantly  exalted. 
Thus  we  read :  *'  Whoever  shears  his  substance  for 
the  poor  escapes  the  condemnation  of  hell  "  (Nedariniy 
f.  22,  i). 

In  Baba  Bathra^  f  10,  i,  and  Rosh  Hashanah,  f.  16,  2, 
we  have  ^^  alms  delivereth  from  death,"  as  a  gloss  on. 
the  meaning  of  Prov.  xi.  4.^ 

*  Bemchoth,  f.  10,  2 ;  f.  57,  2. 

"^  Theodot.,  rots  afiaprias  aov  ev  iXerjfioaviyaLS  XurpuaaL ;  Vulg,, 
peccata  tita  eleemosyms  redime.  Comp.  Psalm  cxii.  9,  This  exalta- 
tion of  almsgiving  is  a  characteristic  of  later  Judaism  (Ecclus.  iv.  5-10 ; 
Tobit  iv.  II). 

3  Comp.  Prov.  x.  2,  xvi.  6 ;  Sukka,  f.  49,  2.  The  theological  and 
ethical  question  involved  is  discussed  by  Calvin,  Instt.,  iii.  4  ;  Be)- 
larmine,  De  Pcenitent.,  ii.  6  (Behrraann). 


196  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

We  cannot  tell  that  the  writer  shared  these  views. 
He  probably  meant  no  more  than  that  cruelty  and 
injustice  were  the  chief  vices  of  despots,  and  that  the 
only  way  to  avert  a  threatened  calamity  was  by  re- 
penting of  them.  The  necessity  for  compassion  in  the 
abstract  was  recognised  even  by  the  most  brutal 
Assyrian  kings. 

We  are  next  told  the  fulfilment  of  the  dark  dream. 
The  interpretation  had  been  meant  to  warn  the  king ; 
but  the  warning  was  soon  forgotten  by  one  arrayed 
in  such  absolutism  of  imperial  power.  The  intoxication 
of  pride  had  become  habitual  in  his  heart,  and  twelve 
months  sufficed  to  obliterate  all  solemn  thoughts.  The 
Septuagint  adds  that  "  he  kept  the  words  in  his  heart "  ; 
but  the  absence  of  any  mention  of  rewards  or  honours 
paid  to  Daniel  is  perhaps  a  sign  that  he  was  rather 
offended  than  impressed. 

A  year  later  he  was  walking  on  the  flat  roof  of  the 
great  palace  of  the  kingdom  of  Babylon.  The  sight 
of  that  golden  city  in  the  zenith  of  its  splendour  may 
well  have  dazzled  the  soul  of  its  founder.  He  tells  us 
in  an  inscription  that  he  regarded  that  city  as  the  apple 
of  his  eye,  and  that  the  palace  was  its  most  glorious 
ornament.-^  It  was  in  the  centre  of  the  whole  country ; 
it  covered  a  vast  space,  and  was  visible  far  and  wide. 
It  was  built  of  brick  and  bitumen,  enriched  with  cedar 
and  iron,  decorated  with  inscriptions  and  paintings. 
The  tower  "  contained  the  treasures  of  my  imperishable 
royalty ;  and  silver,  gold,  metals,  gems,  nameless  and 
priceless,  and  immense  treasures  of  rare  value,"  had 


'  It  is  now   called   Kasr,    but   the  Arabs  call  it   Mttjelibe]  "  The 
Ruined.' 


BABYLONIAN  CEDAR,  AND  THE  STRICKEN  DESPOT  197 

been  lavished  upon  it.  Begun  ''in  a  happy  month, 
and  on  an  auspicious  day,"  it  had  been  finished  in 
fifteen  days  by  armies  of  slaves.  This  palace  and  its 
celebrated  hanging  gardens  were  one  of  the  wonders 
of  the  world. 

Beyond  this  superb  edifice,  where  now  the  hyaena 
prowls  amid  miles  of  debris  and  mounds  of  ruin,  and 
where  the  bittern  builds  amid  pools  of  water,  lay  the 
unequalled  city.  Its  walls  were  three  hundred  and 
eighty  feet  high  and  eighty-five  feet  thick,  and  each 
side  of  the  quadrilateral  they  enclosed  was  fifteen  miles 
in  length.  The  mighty  Euphrates  flowed  through  the 
midst  of  the  city,  which  is  said  to  have  covered  a  space 
of  two  hundred  square  miles  ;  and  on  its  farther  bank, 
terrace  above  terrace,  up  to  its  central  altar,  rose  the 
huge  Temple  of  Bel,  with  all  its  dependent  temples  and 
palaces.^  The  vast  circuit  of  the  walls  enclosed  no 
mere  wilderness  of  houses,  but  there  were  interspaces 
of  gardens,  and  palm-groves,  and  orchards,  and  corn- 
land,  sufficient  to  maintain  the  whole  population.  Here 
and  there  rose  the  temples  reared  to  Nebo,  and  Sin 
the  moon-god,  and  Mylitta,  and  Nana,  and  Samas,  and 
other  deities  ;  and  there  were  aqueducts  or  conduits 
for  water,  and  forts  and  palaces ;  and  the  walls  were 
pierced  with  a  hundred  brazen  gates.  When  Milton 
wanted  to  find  some  parallel  to  the  city  of  Pandemonium 
in  Paradise  Lost,  he  could  only  say, — 

"Not  Babylon, 
Nor  great  Alcairo  such  magnificence 
Equall'd  in  all  their  glories,  to  enshrine 
Belus  or  Serapis  their  gods,  or  seat 
Their  kings,  when  Egypt  with  Assyria  strove 
In  wealth  and  luxury." 

•  Birs-Nimrod  (Grote,  Hist,  of  Greece,  III.,  chap.  xix. ;  Layard, 
Nin,  and  Bab,,  chap,  ii.). 


198  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

Babylon,  to  use  the  phrase  of  Aristotle,  included,  not 
a  city,  but  a  nation.-^ 

Enchanted  by  the  glorious  spectacle  of  this  house 
of  his  royalty  and  abode  of  his  majesty,  the  despot 
exclaimed  almost  in  the  words  of  some  of  his  own 
inscriptions,  ''  Is  not  this  great  Babylon  that  I  have 
built  for  the  house  of  the  kingdom  by  the  might  of  my 
treasures  and  for  the  honour  of  my  majesty  ?  " 

The  Bible  always  represents  to  us  that  pride  and 
arrogant  self-confidence  are  an  offence  against  God. 
The  doom  fell  on  Nebuchadrezzar  "  while  the  haughty 
boast  was  still  in  the  king's  mouth."  The  suddenness 
of  the  Nemesis  of  pride  is  closely  paralleled  by  the 
scene  in  the  Acts  of  the  Ap6stles  in  which  Herod 
Agrippa  I.  is  represented  as  entering  the  theatre  at 
Caesarea  to  receive  the  deputies  of  Tyre  and  Sidon. 
He  was  clad,  says  Josephus,  in  a  robe  of  intertissued 
silver,  and  when  the  sun  shone  upon  it  he  was  sur- 
rounded with  a  blaze  of  splendour.  Struck  by  the 
scene,  the  people,  when  he  had  ended  his  harangue  to 
them,  shouted,  '*  It  is  the  voice  of  a  god,  and  not  of  a 
man  ! "  Herod,  too,  in  the  story  of  Josephus,  had  re- 
ceived, just  before,  an  ominous  warning  ;  but  it  came 
to  him  in  vain.  He  accepted  the  blasphemous  adula- 
tion, and  immediately,  smitten  by  the  angel  of  God,  he 
was  eaten  of  worms,  and  in  three  days  was  dead.^ 

And  something  like  this  we  see  again  and  again  in 
what  the  late  Bishop  Thirlwall  called  the  "  irony  of 
history  " — the  very  cases  in  which  men  seem  to  have 
.been  elevated  to  the  very  summit  of  power  only  to 
heighten    the     dreadful    precipice    over     which    they 

1  Arist.,  Polit,  III.  i.  12.  He  says  that  three  days  after  its  capture 
some  of  its  inhabitants  were  still  unaware  of  the  fact. 

2  Acts  xii.  20-23;  Jos.,  Attit.,  XIV.  viii.  2. 


BABYLONIAN  CEDAR,  AND  THE  STRICKEN  DESPOT  199 

immediately  fall.     He  mentions   the   cases   of  Persia, 
which   was  on    the  verge  of  ruin,    when  with    lordly 
arrogance    she  dictated    the    Peace    of  Antalcidas ;    of 
Boniface  VIII.,  in  the  Jubilee  of  1 300,  immediately  pre- 
ceding his  deadly  overthrow  ;  of  Spain,  under  Philip  II., 
struck  down  by  the  ruin  of  the  Armada  at  the  zenith 
of  her  wealth  and  pride.     He  might  have  added  the 
instances  of  Ahab,  Sennacherib,  Nebuchadrezzar,  and 
Herod  Antipas  ;  of  Alexander  the  Great,   dying  as  the 
fool  dieth,  drunken  and  miserable,  in  the  supreme  hour 
of  his  conquests  ;  of  Napoleon,  hurled  into  the  dust, 
first  by  the  retreat  from  Moscow,  then  by  the  overthrow 
at  Waterloo. 

''While   the    word    was    yet    in    the    king's    mouth, 
there   fell   a   voice    from    heaven."     It    was    what   the 
Talmudists  alluded  to  so  frequently  as  the   Bath  Qol, 
or  ''daughter  of  a  voice,"  which  came  sometimes  for 
the  consolation  of  suffering,  sometimes  for  the  admoni- 
tion of  overweening  arrogance.     It  announced  to  him 
the  fulfilment  of  the  dream  and  its  interpretation.     As 
with  one  lightning-flash  the  glorious  cedar  was  blasted, 
its    leaves    scattered,  its    fruits   destroyed,    its    shelter 
reduced  to  burning   and  barrenness.     Then  somehow 
the  man's  heart  was  taken  from  him.     He  was  driven 
forth   to  dwell  among  the  beasts   of   the  field,  to  eat 
grass  like  oxen.     Taking  himself  for  an  animal  in  his 
degrading  humiliation  he  lived  in  the  open  field.    The 
dews  of  heaven    fell    upon  him.     His    unkempt  locks 
grew  rough  like  eagles'  feathers,  his  uncut  nails  like 
claws.      In    this    condition    he    remained    till    ''seven 
tijnes  "—some  vague  and  sacred  cycle  of  days— passed 

over  him. 

His  penalty  was  nothing  absolutely  abnormal.     His 
illness  is  well  known  to  science  and  national  tradition 


THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


as  that  form  of  hypochondriasis  in  which  a  man  takes 
himself  for  a  wolf  (lycanthropy),  or  a  dog  (kynanthropy), 
or  some  other  animal.^  Probably  the  fifth-century 
monks,  who  were  known  as  Boskoi,  from  feeding  on 
grass,  may  have  been,  in  many  cases,  half  maniacs  who 
in  time  took  themselves  for  oxen.  Cornill,  so  far  as 
I  know,  is  the  first  to  point  out  the  curious  circumstance 
that  a  notion  as  to  the  points  of  analogy  between 
Nebuchad;^ezzar  (thus  spelt)  and  Antiochus  Epiphanes 
may  have  been  strengthened  by  the  Jewish  method  of 
mystic  commentary  known  in  the  Talmud  as  Gematria, 
and  in  Greek  as  Isopsephism.  That  such  methods,  in 
other  forms,  were  known  and  practised  in  early  times 
we  find  from  the  substitution  of  Sheshach  for  Babel 
in  Jer.  xxv.  26,  li.  41,  and  of  Tabeal  (by  some  crypto- 
gram) for  Remaliah  in  Isa.  vii.  6 ;  and  of  lebh  kamai 
(*'  them  that  dwell  in  the  midst  of  them  ")  for  Kasdim 
(Chaldeans)  in  Jer.  li.  i.  These  forms  are  only  expli- 
cable by  the  interchange  of  letters  known  as  Athbash, 
Albam,  etc.     Now  Nebuchadnezzar  =  423  : — 

J  =  50 ;   1  =  2;   1  =  6;   D  =  20  ;   1  =  4;   J  =  50 ;   N  =  i  ; 
\f  =  90  ;  1  =  200  =  423. 

And  Antiochus  Epiphanes  =  423  : — 

N=i;  :  =  5o;  tD  =  9;  >=io;  1  =  6;    3=  20;  1  =  6; 

D  =  60  = 162  )  _ 

N  =  I  ;  a  =  70 ;  *  =  10  ;  Q  =  70 ;  i  =  50 ;  D  =  60  =  261  j        ^^' 

The  madness  of  Antiochus  was  recognised  in  the 
popular  change  of  his  name  from  Epiphanes  to  Epimanes. 
But  there  were  obvious  points  of  resemblance  between 

'  For  further  information  on  this  subject  I  may  refer  to  my  paper 
on  "  Rabbinic  Exegesis,"  Expositor^  v.  362-378.  The  fact  that  there  are 
slight  variations  in  spelling  Nebuchadnezzar  and  Antiochus  Epiphanes 
is  of  no  importance. 


BABYLONIAN  CEDAR,  AND  THE  STRICKEN  DESPOT  201 

these  potentates.  Both  of  them  conquered  Jerusalem. 
Both  of  them  robbed  the  Temple  of  its  holy  vessels. 
Both  of  them  were  liable  to  madness.  Both  of  them 
tried  to  dictate  the  religion  of  their  subjects. 

What  happened  to  the  kingdom  of  Babylon  during 
the  interim  is  a  point  with  which  the  writer  does  not 
trouble  himself.  It  formed  no  part  of  his  story  or  of 
his  moral.  There  is,  however,  no  difficulty  in  sup- 
posing that  the  chief  mages  and  courtiers  may  have 
continued  to  rule  in  the  king's  name — a  course  rendered 
all  the  more  easy  by  the  extreme  seclusion  in  which 
most  Eastern  monarchs  pass  their  lives,  often  unseen  by 
their  subjects  from  one  year's  end  to  the  other.  Alike 
in  ancient  days  as  in  modern — witness  the  cases  of 
Charles  VI.  of  France,  Christian  VII.  of  Denmark, 
George  III.  of  England,  and  Otho  of  Bavaria — a  king's 
madness  is  not  allowed  to  interfere  with  the  normal 
administration  of  the  kingdom. 

When  the  seven  ^^  times " — whether  years  or  brief 
periods — were  concluded,  Nebuchadrezzar  **  lifted  up 
his  eyes  to  heaven,"  and  his  understanding  returned 
to  him.  No  further  light  is  thrown  on  his  recovery, 
which  (as  is  not  infrequently  the  case  in  madness)  was 
as  sudden  as  his  aberration.  Perhaps  the  calm  of  the 
infinite  azure  over  his  head  flowed  into  his  troubled 
soul,  and  reminded  him  that  (as  the  inscriptions  say) 
''  the  Heavens  "  are  ''  the  father  of  the  gods."  ^  At  any 
rate,  with  that  upward  glance  came  the  restoration  of 
his  reason. 

He  instantly  blessed  the  Most  High,  ^*  and  praised 
and  honoured  Him  who  liveth  for  ever,  whose  dominion 
is  an  everlasting  dominion,  and  His  kingdom  is  from 

'  Psalm  cxxiii.  I.     See  Eurypides,  Bacchce,  699. 


THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


generation  to  generation.^  And  all  the  inhabitants  of 
the  earth  are  reputed  as  nothing  ;  and  He  doeth  accord- 
ing to  His  will  ^  in  the  army  of  heaven,  and  among  the 
inhabitants  of  the  earth  ;  ^  and  none  can  stay  His  hand, 
or  say  unto  Him,  What  doest  Thou  ?  "  * 

Then  his  lords  and  counsellors  reinstated  him  in  his 
former  majesty  ;  his  honour  and  brightness  returned  to 
him ;  he  was  once  more  "  that  head  of  gold "  in  his 
kingdom." 

He  concludes  the  story  with  the  words  :  ''  Now  I 
Nebuchadnezzar  praise  and  extol  and  honour  the  King 
of  heaven,  all  whose  works  are  truth  and  His  ways 
judgment ;  ^  and  those  that  walk  in  pride  He  is  able  to 
abase."  ^ 

He  died  b.c.  561,  and  was  deified,  leaving  behind  him 
an  invincible  name. 


1  Exod.  xvii.  16. 

2  Psalm  cxlv.  13. 

^  Isa.  xxiv.  21,  xl.  15,  17.  For  the  "host  of  heaven"  {ffTparla 
oipdvios,  Luke  ii.  13)  see  Isa.  xl.  26 ;  Job.  xxxviii.  7  ;  l  Kings  xxii.  19  ', 
Enoch  xviii.  14-16  ;  Matt.  xi.  25. 

*  Isa.  xliii.  13,  xlv.  9;  Psalm  cxxxv.  6;  Job  ix.  12;  Eccles.  viii.  4. 
The  phrase  for  "  to  reprove  "  is  literally  "  to  strike  on  the  hand,"  and 
is  common  in  later  Jewish  writers. 

^  Dan.  ii.  38.  ^  Exod.  xviii.  ii. 

^  Psalm  xxxiii.  4. 


CHAPTER   V 

THE  FIERY  INSCRIPTION 

"  That  night  they  slew  him  on  his  father's  throne 
He  died  unnoticed,  and  the  hand  unknown : 
Crownless  and  sceptreless  Belshazzar  lay, 
A  robe  of  purple  round  a  form  of  clay." 

Sir  E.  Arnold. 

IN  this  chapter  again  we  have  another  magnificent 
fresco-picture,  intended,  as  was  the  last — but  under 
circumstances  of  aggravated  guilt  and  more  terrible 
menace — to  teach  the  lesson  that  "  verily  there  is  a 
God  that  judgeth  the  earth." 

The  truest  way  to  enjoy  the  chapter,  and  to  grasp 
the  lessons  which  it  is  meant  to  inculcate  in  their  proper 
force  and  vividness,  is  to  consider  it  wholly  apart  from 
the  difficulties  as  to  its  literal  truth.  To  read  it  aright, 
and  duly  to  estimate  its  grandeur,  we  must  relegate 
to  the  conclusion  of  the  story  all  worrying  questions, 
impossible  of  final  solution,  as  to  whom  the  writer 
intended  by  Belshazzar,  or  whom  by  Darius  the  Mede.^ 
All  such  discussions  are  extraneous  to  edification,  and 

*  The  question  has  already  been  fully  discussed  {supra^  pp.  S4~57)' 
The  apologists  say  that — 

I.  Belshazzar  was  Evil-merodach  (Niebuhr,  Wolff,  Bishop  Westcott, 
ZOckler,  Keil,  etc.),  as  the  son  of  Nebuchadrezzar  (Dan.  v.  2,  II,  i8, 
22),  and  his  successor  (Baruch  i.  ii,  12,  where  he  is  called  Balthasar, 
as  in  the  LXX.).     The   identification  is  impossible  (see  Dan.  v.  28, 

203 


204  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


in  no  way  affect  either  the  consummate  skill  of  the 
picture  or  the  eternal  truths  of  which  it  is  the  symbolic 
expression.  To  those  who,  with  the  present  writer, 
are  convinced,  by  evidence  from  every  quarter — from 
philology,  history,  the  testimony  of  the  inscriptions, 
and  the  manifold  results  obtained  by  the  Higher 
Criticism — that  the  Book  of  Daniel  is  the  work  of  some 
holy  and  highly  gifted  Chasid  in  the  days  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes,  it  becomes  clear  that  the  story  of  Belshazzar, 
whatever  dim  fragments  of  Babylonian  tradition  it 
may  enshrine,  is  really  suggested  by  the  profanity  of 
Antiochus  Epiphanes  in  carrying  off,  and  doubtless 
subjecting  to  profane  usage,  many  of  the  sacred  vessels 
of  the  Temple  of  Jerusalem.^  The  retribution  which 
awaited  the  wayward  Seleucid  tyrant  is  prophetically 
intimated  by  the  menace  of  doom  which  received  such 


31);  for  Evil-merodach  (b.c.  561)  was  murdered  by  his  brother-in-law 
Neriglissar  (b.c.  559).  Besides,  the  Jews  were  well  acquainted  with 
Evil-tnerodach  (2  Kings  xxv.  27;  Jer.  lii.  31. 

2.  Belshazzar  was  Nabunaid  (St.  Jerome,  Ewald,  Winer,  Herzfeld, 
Auberlen,  etc.).  But  the  usurper  Nabunaid,  son  of  a  Rab-mag,  was 
wholly  unlike  Belshazzar ;  and  so  far  from  being  slain,  he  was 
pardoned,  and  sent  by  Cyrus  to  be  Governor  of  Karmania,  in  which 
position  he  died. 

3.  Belshazzar  was  the  son  of  Nabunaid.  But  though  Nabunaid  had 
a  son  of  the  name  he  was  never  king.  We  know  nothing  of  any 
relationship  between  him  and  Nebuchadrezzar,  nor  does  Cyrus  in 
his  records  make  the  most  distant  allusion  to  him.  The  attempt  to 
identify  Nebuchadrezzar  with  an  unknown  Marduk-sar-utsur,  men- 
tioned in  Babylonian  tablets,  breaks  down ;  for  Mr.  Boscawen  {Soc. 
Bibl.y  in  §  vi.,  p.  108)  finds  that  he  reigned  before  Nabunaid.  Further, 
the  son  of  Nabunaid  perished,  not  in  Babylon,  but  in  Accad. 

'  See  I  Mace.  i.  21-24.  He  "entered  proudly  into  the  sanctuary, 
and  took  away  the  golden  altar,  and  the  candlestick  of  light,  and  all 
the  vessels  thereof,  and  the  table  of  the  shewbread,  and  the  pouring 
vessels,  and  the  vials,  and  the  censers  of  gold.  .  .  .  He  took  also  the 
silver  and  the  gold,  and  the  precious  vessels  :  also  he  took  the  hidden 


THE  FIERY  INSCRIPTION  205 

immediate  fulfilment  in  the  case  of  the  Babylonian 
King.  The  humiliation  of  the  guilty  conqueror,  *'  Nebu- 
chadrezzar the  Wicked,"  who  founded  the  Empire  of 
Babylon,  is  followed  by  the  overthrow  of  his  dynasty 
in  the  person  of  his  '^  son,"  and  the  capture  of  his  vast 
capital. 

**  It  is  natural/'  says  Ewald,  "  that  thus  the  picture 
drawn  in  this  narrative  should  become,  under  the  hands 
of  our  author,  a  true  night-piece,  with  all  the  colours 
of  the  dissolute,  extravagant  riot  of  luxurious  passion 
and  growing  madness,  of  ruinous  bewilderment,  and 
of  the  mysterious  horror  and  terror  of  such  a  night 
of  revelry  and  death." 

The  description  of  the  scene  begins  with  one  of  those 
crashing  overtures  of  which  the  writer  duly  estimated 
the  effect  upon  the  imagination. 

''  Belshazzar  the  king  made  a  great  feast  to  a 
thousand  of  his  lords,  and  drank  wine  before  the 
thousand."  ^  The  banquet  may  have  been  intended 
as  some  propitiatory  feast  in  honour  of  Bel-merodach. 
It  was  celebrated  in  that  palace  which  was  a  wonder 
of  the  world,  with  its  winged  statues  and  splendid 
spacious  halls.  The  walls  were  rich  with  images  of 
the  Chaldeans,  painted  in  vermilion  and  exceeding  in 
dyed  attire — those  images  of  goodly  youths  riding  on 
goodly  horses,  as  in  the  Panathenaic  procession  on  the 
frieze  of  the  Acropolis — the  frescoed  pictures,  on  which, 
in  the  prophet's  vision,  Aholah  and  Aholibah,  gloated 

treasures  which  he  found,"  etc.  Comp.  2  Mace.  v.  11-14;  Diod.  Sic, 
XXXI.  i.  48.  The  value  of  precious  metals  which  he  carried  off 
was  estimated  at  one  thousand  eight  hundred  silver  talents — about 
^^350,000  (2  Mace.  V.  21). 

'  The  LXX.  says  ''two  thousand."  Comp.  Esther i.  3,  4.  Jerome 
adds,  "  Unusquisque  secundum  suam  bibit  aetatem." 


2o6  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

in  the  chambers  of  secret  imagery.^  Belshazzar's 
princes  were  there,  and  his  wives,  and  his  concubines, 
whose  presence  the  Babylonian  custom  admitted, 
though  the  Persian  regarded  it  as  unseemly.^  The 
Babylonian  banquets,  like  those  of  the  Greeks,  usually 
ended  by  a  Konios  or  revelry,  in  which  intoxication 
was  regarded  as  no  disgrace.  Wine  flowed  freely. 
Doubtless,  as  in  the  grandiose  picture  of  Martin,  there 
were  brasiers  of  precious  metal,  which  breathed  forth 
the  fumes  of  incense ;  ^  and  doubtless,  too,  there  were 
women  and  boys  and  girls  with  flutes  and  cymbals, 
to  which  the  dancers  danced  in  all  the  orgiastic  aban- 
donment of  Eastern  passion.  All  this  was  regarded  as 
an  element  in  the  rehgious  solernnity  ;  and  while  the 
revellers  drank  their  wine,  hymns  were  being  chanted, 
in  which  they  praised  "  the  gods  of  gold  and  of  silver, 
of  brass,  of  iron,  of  wood,  and  of  stone."  That  the 
king  drank  wine  before  the  thousand  is  the  more 
remarkable  because  usually  the  kings  of  the  East 
banquet  in  solitary  state  in  their  own  apartments.* 

Then  the  wild  king,  with  just  such  a  burst  of  folly 
and  irreverence  as  characterised  the  banquets  of 
Antiochus  Epiphanes,  bethought  him  of  yet  another 
element  of  splendour  with  which  he  might  make  his 
banquet  memorable,   and   prove  the   superiority  of  his 

'  Ezek.  xxiii.  15. 

2  Herod.,  i.  191,  v.  18;  Xen.,  Cyrop.,  V.  ii.  28;  Q.  Curt.,  V.  i.  38. 
Theodotion,  perhaps  scandalised  by  the  fact,  omits  the  wives,  and  the 
LXX.  omits  both  wives  and  concubines. 

^  Layard,  Nin.  and  Bab.,  ii.  262-269, 

*  Athen.,  Deipnos,  iv.  145,  See  the  bas-relief  in  the  British  Museum 
of  King  Assur-bani-pal  drinking  wine  with  his  queen,  while  the  head 
of  his  vanquished  enemy,  Te-Umman,  King  of  Elam,  dangles  from  a 
palm-branch  full  in  his  view,  so  that  he  can  feast  his  eyes  upon  it. 
None  others  are  present  except  the  attendant  eunuchs. 


THE  FIERY  INSCRIPTION  207 

own  victorious  gods  over  those  of  other  nations.  The 
Temple  of  Jerusalem  was  famous  over  all  the  world, 
and  there  were  few  monarchs  who  had  not  heard  of 
the  marvels  and  the  majesty  of  the  God  of  Israel. 
Belshazzar,  as  the  ^'  son  "  of  Nebuchadrezzar,  must — 
if  there  was  any  historic  reality  in  the  events  narrated 
in  the  previous  chapter — have  heard  of  the  ''  signs  and 
wonders"  displayed  by  the  King  of  heaven,  whose 
unparalleled  awfulness  his  "  father "  had  publicly 
attested  in  edicts  addressed  to  all  the  world.  He  must 
have  known  of  the  Rab-mag  Daniel,  whose  v/isdom, 
even  as  a  boy,  had  been  found  superior  to  that  of  all 
the  Chartummim  and  Ashshaphtm ;  and  how  his  three 
companions  had  been  elevated  to  supreme  satrapies  ; 
and  how  they  had  been  delivered  unsinged  from  the 
seven-times-heated  furnace,  whose  flames  had  killed 
his  father's  executioners.  Under  no  conceivable  circum- 
stances could  such  marvels  have  been  forgotten ;  under 
no  circumstances  could  they  have  possibly  failed  to 
create  an  intense  and  a  profound  impression.  And 
Belshazzar  could  hardly  fail  to  have  heard  of  the  dreams 
of  the  golden  image  and  of  the  shattered  cedar,  and  of 
Nebuchadrezzar's  unspeakably  degrading  lycanthropy. 
His  *'  father  "  had  publicly  acknowledged — in  a  decree 
published  "  to  all  peoples,  nations,  and  languages  that 
dwell  in  all  the  earth" — that  humiliation  had  come 
upon  him  as  a  punishment  for  his  overweening  pride. 
In  that  same  decree  the  mighty  Nebuchadrezzar — only 
a  year  or  two  before,  if  Belshazzar  succeeded  him — had 
proclaimed  his  allegiance  to  the  King  of  heaven ;  and 
in  all  previous  decrees  he  had  threatened  ^'  all  people, 
nations,  and  languages  "  that,  if  they  spake  anything 
amiss  against  the  God  of  Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abed- 
nego,   they  should  be  cut  in  pieces,  and  their  houses 


2o8  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

made  a  dunghill.'  Yet  now  Belshazzar,  in  the  flush 
of  pride  and  drunkenness,^  gives  his  order  to  insult 
this  God  with  deadly  impiety  by  publicly  defiling  the 
vessels  of  His  awful  Temple,^  at  a  feast  in  honour  of 
his  own  idol  deities ! 

Similarly  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  if  he  had  not  been 
half  mad,  might  have  taken  warning,  before  he  insulted 
the  Temple  and  the  sacred  vessels  of  Jerusalem,  from 
the  fact  that  his  father,  Antiochus  the  Great,  had  met 
his  death  in  attempting  to  plunder  the  Temple  at 
Elymais  (b.c.  187).  He  might  also  have  recalled  the 
celebrated  discomfiture — however  caused — of  Helio- 
dorus  in  the  Temple  of  Jerusalem.^ 

Such  insulting  and  reckless  blasphemy  could  not  go 
unpunished.  It  is  fitting  that  the  Divine  retribution 
should  overtake  the  king  on  the  same  night,  and  that 
the  same  lips  which  thus  profaned  with  this  wine  the 
holiest  things  should  sip  the  wine  of  the  Divine  poison- 
cup,  whose  fierce  heat  must  in  the  same  night  prove 
fatal  to  himself.  But  even  such  sinners,  drinking  as 
it  were  over  the  pit  of  hell,  *•  according  to  a  metaphor 
used  elsewhere,^  must  still  at  the  last  moment  be 
warned  by  a  suitable  Divine  sign,  that  it  may  be  known 
whether  they  will  honour  the  truth."  ^  Nebuchadrezzar 
had  received  his  warning,  and  in  the  end  it  had  not 
been  wholly  in  vain.  Even  for  Belshazzar  it  might 
perhaps  not  prove  to  be  too  late. 

For  at  this  very  moment  ^  when  the  revelry  was  at 

*  Dan.  iii.  29. 

^  The  Babylonians  were  notorious  for  drunken  revels.  Q.  Curt., 
V.  i.,  "  Babylonii  maxime  in  vinum  et  quae  ebrietatem  sequuntur,  eflfusi 
sunt."  5  Psalm  Iv.  15. 

^  Dan.  i.  2.     Comp.  i  Mace.  i.  21  ff.  ^  Ewald. 

*  2  Mace.  iii.  '  Comp.  Dan.  iii.  7. 


THE  FIERY  INSCRIPTION  209 

its  zenith,  when  the  whirl  of  excited  self-exaltation  was 
most  intense,  when  Judah's  gold  was  "  treading  heavy  on 
the  lips  " — the  profane  lips — of  satraps  and  concubines, 
there  appeared  a  portent,  which  seems  at  first  to  have 
been  visible  to  the  king  alone. 

Seated  on  his  lofty  and  jewelled  throne,  which 

"  Outshone  the  wealth  of  Ormuz  or  of  Ind, 
Or  where  the  gorgeous  East  with  richest  hand 
Showers  on  its  kings  barbaric  pearl  and  gold," 

his  eye  caught  something  visible  on  the  white  stucco  of 
the  wall  above  the  line  of  frescoes.^  He  saw  it  over 
the  lights  which  crowned  the  huge  golden  Nebrashta, 
or  chandelier.^  The  fingers  of  a  man's  hand  were 
writing  letters  on  the  wall,  and  the  king  saw  the  hollow 
of  that  gigantic  supernatural  palm.^ 

The  portent  astounded  and  horrified  him.  The 
flush  of  youth  and  of  wine  faded  from  his  cheek ; — "  his 
brightnesses  were  changed " ;  his  thoughts  troubled 
him  ;  the  bands  of  his  loins  were  loosed ;  ^  his  knees 
smote  one  against  another  in  his  trembling  attitude,^  as 
he  stood  arrested  by  the  awful  sight. 

With  a  terrible  cry  he  ordered  that  the  whole  familiar 
tribe  of  astrologers  and  soothsayers  should  be  sum- 
moned. For  though  the  hand  had  vanished,  its  trace 
was  left   on   the   wall    of   the    banqueting-chamber   in 

'  See  Layard,  Nin.  and  Bab.,  ii.  269. 

2  A  word  of  uncertain  origin.  The  Talmud  uses  it  for  the  word 
DnaD*?  (the  Greek  \afiirds). 

^  "Hollow."  Hob.,  pas;  Theodot.,  a(Trpa'ya\ovi  ]  Vulg.,  articulos. 
The  word  may  mean  "  palm "  of  the  hand,  or  sole  of  the  foot 
(Bevan). 

■»  Psalm  Ixix.  23.  "  Bands  " — lit.  "  fastenings  " ;  Theodot.,  crvpdefffjLoi ; 
Vulg.,  compages. 

^  Comp.  Ezek.  vii.  17,  and  the  Homeric  \\jto  yoivara,  Od.,  iv.  703  ; 
Ov.,  Met.,  ii,  180,  "genua  intremuere  timore." 

14 


THE  BOOK   OF  DANIEL 


letters  of  fire.  And  the  stricken  king,  anxious  to  know 
above  all  things  the  purport  of  that  strange  writing, 
proclaims  that  he  who  could  interpret  it  should  be 
clothed  in  scarlet,  and  have  a  chain  of  gold  about  his 
neck,  and  should  be  one  of  the  triumvirs  of  the  kingdom.^ 

It  was  the  usual  resource  ;  and  it  failed  as  it  had 
done  in  every  previous  instance.  The  Babylonian  magi 
in  the  Book  of  Daniel  prove  themselves  to  be  more 
futile  even  than  Pharaoh's  magicians  with  their  en- 
chantments. 

The  dream-interpreters  in  all  their  divisions  entered 
the  banquet-hall.  The  king  was  perturbed,  the  omen 
urgent,  the  reward  magnificent.  But  it  was  all  in  vain. 
As  usual  they  failed,  as  in  every  instance  in  which  they 
are  introduced  in  the  Old  Testament.  And  their  failure 
added  to  the  visible  confusion  of  the  king,  whose  livid 
countenance  retained  its  pallor.  The  banquet,  in  all  its 
royal  magnificence,  seemed  likely  to  end  in  tumult  and 
confusion  ;  for  the  princes,  and  satraps,  and  wives,  and 
concubines  all  shared  in  the  agitation  and  bewilderment 
of  their  sovereign. 

Meanwhile  the  tidings  of  the  startling  prodigy  had 
reached  the  ears  of  the  Gebirah — the  queen-mother — 
who,  as  always  in  the  East,  held  a  higher  rank  than  even 


'  Doubtless  suggested  by  Gen.  xH.  42  (comp.  Herod.,  iii.  20;  Xen., 
Anab.,  I.  ii.  27;  Cyrop.,  VIII.  v.  18),  as  other  parts  of  Daniel's  story 
recall  that  of  Joseph.  Comp.  Esther  vi,  8,  9.  The  word  for  "  scarlet " 
or  red-purple  is  argona.  The  word  for  "chain"  {Q'ri.  ham'nika)  is 
in  Theodotion  rendered  /jLauiaKrjS,  and  occurs  in  later  Aramaic.  The 
phrase  rendered  "third  ruler"  is  very  uncertain.  The  inference 
drawn  from  it  in  the  Speakers  Commentary  — that  Nabunaid  was  king, 
and  Belshazzar  second  ruler— is  purely  nugatory.  For  the  Hebrew 
word  talti  cannot  mean  "third,"  which  would  be  '•rivi^.  Ewald  and 
most  Hebraists  take  it  to  mean  "  rule,  as  one  of  the  board  of  three." 
For  "  triumvir  "  comp.  vi.  2. 


THE  FIERY  INSCRIPTION 


the  reigning  sultana/  She  had  not  been  present  at — 
perhaps  had  not  approved  of — the  luxurious  revel,  held 
when  the  Persians  were  at  thie  very  gates.  But  now, 
in  her  young  son's  extremity,  she  comes  forward  to 
help  and  advise  him.  Entering  the  hall  with  her 
attendant  maidens,  she  bids  the  king  to  be  no  longer 
troubled,  for  there  is  a  man  of  the  highest  rank — invari- 
ably, as  would  appear,  overlooked  and  forgotten  till  the 
critical  moment,  in  spite  of  his  long  series  of  triumphs 
and  achievements — who  was  quite  able  to  read  the 
fearful  augur}^,  as  he  had  often  done  before,  when  all 
others  had  been  foiled  by  Him  who  '*  frustrateth  the 
tokens  of  the  liars  and  maketh  diviners  mad."  "  Strange 
that  he  should  not  have  been  thought  of,  though  "  the 
king  thy  father,  the  king,  I  say,  thy  father,  made  him 
master  of  the  whole  college  of  mages  and  astrologers. 
Let  Belshazzar  send  for  Belteshazzar,  and  he  •  would 
untie  the  knot  and  read  the  awful  enigma."  ^ 

Then,  Daniel  v/as  summoned ;  and  since  the  king 
"  has  heard  of  him,  that  the  spirit  of  the  gods  is  in  him, 
and  that  light  and  understanding  and  excellent  wisdom 
is  found  in  him,"  and  that  he  is  one  who  can  interpret 
dreams,  and  unriddle  hard  sentences  and  untie  knots, 

'  I  Kings  XV.  13.  She  is  precariously  identified  by  the  apologists 
with  the  Nitocris  of  Herodotus  ;  and  it  is  imagined  that  she  may  have 
been  a  daughter  of  Nebuchadrezzar,  married  to  Nabunaid  before  the 
murder  of  Neriglissar. 

^  Isa.  xliv.  25. 

^  The  word  Qistrin,  "knots,"  may  mean  "hard  questions";  but  Mr. 
Bevan  (p.  104)  thinks  there  may  be  an  allusion  to  knots  used  as  magic 
spells.  (Comp.  Sen.,  (Edip.,  loi,  ^^ Nodosa  sortis  verba  et  implexos 
dolos,")  He  quotes  Al-Baidawi  on  the  Koran,  Ixiii.  4,  who  says  that 
"  a  Jew  casts  a  spell  on  Mohammed  by  tying  knots  in  a  cord,  and 
hiding  it  in  a  well."  But  Gabriel  told  the  prophet  to  send  for  the  cord, 
and  at  each  verse  of  the  Koran  recited  over  it  a  knot  untied  itself. 
See  Records  of  the  Past,  iii.  141  ;  and  Duke,  Rabb.  Blumenlehrey  231. 


THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


he  shall  have  the  scarlet  robe,  and  the  golden  chain, 
and  the  seat  among  the  triumvirs,  if  he  will  read  and 
interpret  the  writing. 

"  Let  thy  gifts  be  thine,  and  thy  rewards  to  another,"  ^ 
answered  the  seer,  with  fearless  forthrightness  :  "  yet, 
O  king,  I  will  read  and  interpret  the  writing."  Then, 
after  reminding  him  of  the  consummate  power  and 
majesty  of  his  father  Nebuchadrezzar  ;  and  how  his 
mind  had  become  indurated  with  pride  ;  and  how  he 
had  been  stricken  with  lycanthropy,  **  till  he  knew  that 
the  Most  High  God  ruled  in  the  kingdom  of  men"; 
and  that,  in  spite  of  all  this,  he,  Belshazzar,  in  his 
infatuation,  had  insulted  the  Most  High  God  by  pro- 
faning the  holy  vessels  of  His  Temple  in  a  licentious 
revelry  in  honour  of  idols  of  gold,  silver,  brass,  iron, 
and  stone,  which  neither  see,  nor  know,  nor  hear, — for 
this  reason  (said  the  seer)  had  the  hollow  hand  been 
sent  and  the  writing  stamped  upon  the  wall. 

And  now  what  was  the  writing  ?  Daniel  at  the  first 
glance  had  read  that  fiery  quadrilateral  of  letters,  look- 
ing like  the  twelve  gems  of  the  high  priest's  ephod 
with  the  mystic  light  gleaming  upon  them. 


M. 

N. 

A. 

M. 

N. 

A. 

T. 

Q. 

L. 

P. 

R. 

S. 

So  Elisha,  2  Kings  v.  i6. 


THE  FIERY  INSCRIPTION 


213 


Four  names  of  weight. 


A 

Mina. 

A 

Mina. 

A 

Shekel. 

A 

Half-mina.^ 

What  possible  meaning  could  there  be  in  that  ?  Did 
it  need  an  archangel's  colossal  hand,  flashing  forth 
upon  a  palace-wall  to  write  the  menace  of  doom,  to  have 
inscribed  no  more  than  the  names  of  four  coins  or 
weights  ?  No  wonder  that  the  Chaldeans  could  not 
interpret  such  writing  I 

It  may  be  asked  why  they  could  not  even  read  it, 
since  the  words  are  evidently  Aramaic,  and  Aramaic 
was  the  common  language  of  trade.  The  Rabbis  say 
that  the  words,  instead  of  being  written  from  right  to 

'  The  Mem  is  repeated  for  emphasis.  In  the  Upharsin  (ver.  25) 
the  u  is  merely  the  "and,"  and  the  word  is  slightly  altered,  perhaps 
to  make  the  paronomasia  with  "  Persians  "  more  obvious.  According 
to  Buxtorf  and  Gesenius,  peras,  in  the  sense  of  "  divide,"  is  very  rare 
in  the  Targums. 

'^  Journal  A  siatique,  1886.  (Comp.  Noldeke,  Ztschr.fiir  Assyriologie, 
i.  414-418;  Kamphausen,  p.  46.)  It  is  M.  Clermont-Ganneau  who 
has  the  credit  of  discovering  what  seems  to  be  the  true  interpretation 
of  these  mysterious  words.  M'ne  (Heb.  Maneh)  is  the  Greek  ixva, 
Lat.  mina,  which  the  Greeks  borrowed  from  the  Assyrians.  Tekel 
(in  the  Targum  of  Onkelos  tikla)  is  the  Hebrew  shekel.  In  the 
Mishnah  a  half-mina  is  called  peras,  and  an  Assyrian  weight  in  the 
British  Museum  bears  the  inscription  perash  in  the  Aramaic  character. 
(See  Bevan,  p.  106  ;  Schrader,  s.v.  "  Mene  "  in  Riehm,  R.  W.  B.)  Peres 
is  used  for  a  half-mina  in  Ybma,  f.  4,  4.^- bfti&A;inHhe  Talmud,'^  and  in 
Corp.  Inscr.  Sem.,  ii.  lo  (Behrmann). '  "^"^   '  '\.v 


214 


THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


left,  were  written  fciovijSov,  ''  pillar-wise,"  as  the  Greeks 
called  it,  from  above  downwards  :  thus — 


^ 

n 

^ 

^ 

"i 

p 

i 

:3 

D 

h 

i< 

5< 

Read  from  left  to  right,  they  would  look  Hke  gibberish ; 
read  from  above  downwards,  they  became  clear  as  far 
as  the  reading  was  concerned,  though  their  interpreta- 
tion might  still  be  surpassingly  enigrtiatic. 

But  words  may  stand  for  all  sorts  of  mysterious 
meanings ;  and  in  the  views  of  analogists — as  those  are 
called  who  not  only  believe  in  the  mysterious  force  and 
fascination  of  words,  but  even  in  the  physiological 
quality  of  sounds — they  may  hide  awful  indications 
under  harmless  vocables.     Herein  lay  the  secret. 

A  mina  I  a  mina !  Yes ;  but  the  names  of  the 
weights  recall  the  word  m'nah,  *'  hath  numbered  "  :  and 
*'  God  hath  numbered  thy  kingdom  and  finished  it." 

A  shekel  1  Yes ;  t'qiita  :  **  Thou  hast  been  weighed 
in  a  balance  and  found  wanting." 

Peres — a  half-mina  !  Yes  ;  but  frtsath  :  "  Thy  king- 
dom has  been  divided,  and  given  to  the  Medes  and 
Persians."  ^ 

'  The  word  occurs  in  Peres  Uzza.  There  still,  however,  remain 
some  obviously  unexplored  mysteries  about  these  words.  Parono- 
masia, as  I  showed  long  ago  in  other  works,  plays  a  noble  and 
profound  part  in  the  language  of  emotion  ;  and  that  the  interpretation 
should  here  be  made  to  turn  upon  it  is  not  surprising  by  any  means. 
We  find  it  in  the  older  prophets.  Thus  in  Jer,  i.  1 1,  12 :  "What  seest 
thou  ?     And   I  said,   I  see  a  rod  of  an  almond  tree.     Then  said  the 


THE  FIERY  INSCRIPTION  215 

At  this  point  the  story  is  very  swiftly  brought  to  a 
conclusion,  for  its  essence  has  been  already  given. 
Daniel  is  clothed  in  scarlet,  and  ornamented  with  the 
chain  of  gold,  and  proclaimed  triumvir.^ 

But  the  king's  doom  is  sealed  !  "  That  night  was 
Belshazzar,  king  of  the  Chaldeans,  slain."  His  name 
meant,  ''  Bel !  preserve  thou  the  king !  "  But  Bel 
bowed  down,  and  Nebo  stooped,  and  gave  no  help  to 
their  votary. 

"  Evil  things  in  robes  of  sorrow 

Assailed  the  monarch's  high  estate ; 
Ah,  woe  is  me  !  for  never  morrow 

Shall  dawn  upon  him  desolate  ! 
And  all  about  his  throne  the  glory 

That  blushed  and  bloomed 
Is  but  an  ill-remembered  story 

Of  the  old  time  entombed," 


*'  And   Darius  the   Mede    took    the    kingdom,   being 
about  sixty-two  years  old." 

Lord  unto  me,  Thou  hast  well  seen  :  for  I  will  hasten  My  word  to 
perform  it."  The  meaning  here  depends  on  the  resemblance  in 
Hebrew  between  shaqeed,  "  an  almond  tree  "  ("  a  wakeful,  or  early 
tree  "),  and  shoqeed,  "I  will  hasten,"  or  "am  wakeful  over." 

And  that  the  same  use  of  plays  on  words  was  still  common  in  the 
Maccabean  epoch  we  see  in  the  Story  of  Susanna,  There  Daniel 
plays  on  the  resemblance  between  <x-xlvos,  "  a  mastick  tree,"  and 
(r%tVet,  "shall  cut  thee  in  two";  and  irpivos,  "a  holm  oak,"  and 
vpiaai,  "  to  cut  asunder,"  We  may  also  point  to  the  fine  parono- 
masia in  the  Hebrew  of  Isa,  v,  7,  Mic.  i.  10-15,  and  other  passages. 
"  Such  a  conceit,"  says  Mr,  Ball,  "  may  seem  to  us  far-fetched  and 
inappropriate  ;  but  the  Oriental  mind  delights  in  such  lusus  verborum, 
and  the  peculiar  force  of  all  such  passages  in  the  Hebrew  prophets  is 
lost  in  our  version  because  they  have  not  been  preserved  in  trans- 
lation." 

As  regards  the  Medes,  they  are  placed  after  the  Persians  in  Isa. 
xxi.  2,  Esther  i,  3,  but  generally  before  them, 

'  LXX,,  Sdu)K€v  e^ovaiav  avnp  roO  rplrov  fiepovs ;  Theodot.,  dpxovra 
tp'ltov.     See  supra,  p.  210. 


2i6  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

As  there  is  no  such  person  known  as  ''  Darius  the 
Mede,"  the  age  assigned  to  him  must  be  due  either  to 
some  tradition  about  some  other  Darius,  or  to  chrono- 
logical calculations  to  which  we  no  longer  possess  the 
key.i 

He  is  called  the  son  of  Achashverosh,  Ahasuerus 
(ix.  i),  or  Xerxes.     The  apologists  have  argued  that — 

1.  Darius  was  Cyaxares  II.,  father  of  Cyrus,  on  the 
authority  of  Xenophon's  romance,^  and  Josephus's  echo 
of  it.^  But  the  Cyropcedia  is  no  authority,  being,  as 
Cicero  said,  a  non-historic  fiction  written  to  describe 
an  ideal  kingdom.'^  History  knows  nothing  of  a 
Cyaxares  II, 

2.  Darius  was  Astyages.^  Not  to  mention  other  im- 
possibilities which  attach  to  this  view,  Astyages  would 
have  been  far  older  than  sixty-two  at  the  capture  of 
Babylon  by  Cyrus.  Cyrus  had  suppressed  the  Median 
dynasty  altogether  some  years  before  he  took  Babylon. 

3.  Darius  was  the  satrap  Gobryas,  who,  so  far  as 
we  know,  only  acted  as  governor  for  a  few  months. 
But  he  is  represented  on  the  contrary  as  an  extremely 
absolute  king,  setting  one  hundred  and  twenty  princes 
*'  over  the  whole  kingdom,"  and  issuing  mandates  to 
^*  all  people,  nations,  and  languages  that  dwell  in  all  the 
earth."     Even  if  such  an  identification  were  admissible, 

'  The  LXX.  evidently  felt  some  difficulty  or  followed  some  other 
text,  for  they  render  it,  "  And  Artaxerxes  of  the  Medes  took  the  king- 
dom, and  Darius  full  of  days  and  glorious  in  old  age."  So,  too, 
Josephus  {AntL,  X.  xi.  4),  who  says  that  "he  was  called  by  another 
name  among  the  Greeks." 

2  Cyrop.,  I.  V,  2. 

^  Antt.,  X.  xi,  4.  This  was  the  view  of  Vitnnga,  Bertholdt, 
Gesenius,  Winer,  Keil,  Hengstenberg,  Havernick,  etc. 

^  Ad.Q.  Fratr.,  i.  8. 

*  The  view  of  Niebuhr  and  Westcott. 


THE  FIERY  INSCRIPTION  217 

it  would  not  in  the  least  save  the  historic  accuracy  of 
the  writer.  This  ''  Darius  the  Mede "  is  ignored  by 
history,  and  Cyrus  is  represented  by  the  ancient  re- 
cords as  having  been  the  sole  and  undisputed  king 
of  Babylon  from  the  time  of  his  conquest.^  ''  Darius 
the  Mede "  probably  owes  his  existence  to  a  literal 
understanding  of  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah  (xiii.  17)  and 
Jeremiah  (H.  1 1,  28). 

We  can  now  proceed  to  the  examination  of  the  next 
chapter  unimpeded  by  impossible  and  half-hearted 
hypotheses.  We  understand  it,  and  it  was  meant  to  be 
understood,  as  a  moral  and  spiritual  parable,  in  which 
unverified  historic  names  and  traditions  are  utilised 
for  the  purpose  of  inculcating  lessons  of  courage  and 
faithfulness.  The  picture,  however,  falls  far  below 
those  of  the  other  chapters  in  power,  finish,  and  even 
an  approach  to  natural  verisimilitude. 

'  See  Herod.,  i.  109.  The  Median  Empire  fell  B.C.  559 ;  Babylon 
was  taken  about  b.c.  539.  It  is  regarded  as  "  important "  that  a  late 
Greek  lexicographer,  long  after  the  Christian  era,  makes  the  vague 
and  wholly  unsupported  assertion  that  the  "  Daric  "  was  named  after 
some  Darius  other  than  the  father  of  Xerxes !     See  supra,  pp.  57-60. 


CHAPTER   VI 

STOPPING    THE  MOUTHS   OF  LIONS 

"  Thou  shalt  tread  upon  the  lion  .  .  .  the  young  lion  shalt  thou 
trample  under  thy  feet." — Psalm  xci.   13. 

ON  the  view  which  regards  these  pictures  as 
powerful  parables,  rich  in  spiritual  instructive- 
ness,  but  not  primarily  concerned  with  historic  accuracy, 
nor  even  necessarily  with  ancient  tradition,  we  have 
seen  how  easily  "  the  great  strong  fresco-strokes " 
which  the  narrator  loves  to  use  "  may  have  been 
suggested  to  him  by  his  diligent  study  of  the 
Scriptures." 

The  first  chapter  is  a  beautiful  picture  which  serves 
to  set  forth  the  glory  of  moderation  and  to  furnish  a 
vivid  concrete  illustration  of  such  passages  as  those  of 
Jeremiah  :  "  Her  Nazarites  were  purer  than  snow  ;  they 
were  whiter  than  milk  ;  they  were  more  rudd}^  in  body 
than  rubies  ;  their  poHshing  was  of  sapphire."  ^ 

The  second  chapter,  closely  reflecting  in  many  of  its 
details  the  story  of  Joseph,  illustrated  how  God  '*  frus- 
trateth  the  tokens  of  the  liars,  and  maketh  diviners 
mad ;  turneth  wise  men  backward,  and  maketh  their 
knowledge  foolish  ;  confirmeth  the  word  of  His  servant, 
and  performeth  the  counsel  of  His  messengers."  ^ 

The  third  chapter    gives  vividness    to    the  promise, 

'  Lam.  iv.  7.  -  Isa.  xliv.  25,  26. 

218 


STOPPING    THE  MOUTHS  OF  LIONS  219 

**  When  thou  walkest  through  the  fire,  thou  shalt  not 
be  burned,  neither  shall  the  flame  kindle  upon  thee."^ 

The  fourth  chapter  repeats  the  apologue  of  Ezekiel, 
in  which  he  compares  the  King  of  Assyria  to  a  cedar 
in  Lebanon  with  fine  branches,  and  with  a  shadowy 
shroud,  and  fair  by  the  multitude  of  his  branches,  so 
that  all  the  trees  of  Eden  that  were  in  the  garden  of 
God  envied  him,  but  whose  boughs  were  ''  broken  by 
all  the  watercourses  until  the  peoples  of  the  earth  left 
his  shadow."  ^  It  was  also  meant  to  show  that  "  pride 
goeth  before  destruction,  and  a  haughty  spirit  before  a 
fall."^  It  illustrates  the  words  of  Isaiah  :  "  Behold,  the 
Lord,  the  Lord  of  hosts,  shall  lop  the  bough  with  terror  ; 
and  the  high  ones  of  stature  shall  be  hewn  down,  and 
the  haughty  shall  be  humbled."  * 

The  fifth  chapter  gives  a  vivid  answer  to  Isaiah's 
challenge  :  "  Let  now  the  astrologers,  the  stargazers, 
the  monthly  prognosticators,  stand  up  and  save  thee 
from  these  things  which  shall  come  upon  thee."^  It 
describes  a  fulfilment  of  his  vision  :  "  A  grievous  vision 
is  declared  unto  thee  ;  the  treacherous  dealer  dealeth 
treacherously,  and  the  spoiler  spoileth.  Go  up,  O 
Elam  :  besiege,  O  Media."  ^  The  more  detailed  prophecy 
of  Jeremiah  had  said  :  '*  Prepare  against  Babylon  the 
nations  with  the  kings  of  the  Medes.  .  .  .  The  mighty 
men  of  Babylon  have  forborne  to  fight.  .  .  .  One  post 
shall  run  to  meet  another,  and  one  messenger  to  meet 
another,  to  show  the  King  of  Babylon  that  his  city  is 
taken  at  one  end.  ...  In  their  heat  I  will  make  their 
feasts,  and  I  will  make  them  drunken,  that  they  shall 
rejoice,  and  sleep  a  perpetual  sleep,  and  not  wake,  saith 

*  Isa.  xliii.  2.  *  Isa.  x.  33. 

^  Ezek.  xxxi.  2-15  ^  Isa.  xlvii.  13. 

^  Prov.  xvi,  18.  "  Isa.  xxi,  2. 


THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


the  Lord.  .  .  .  How  is  Sheshach  taken  !  ^  and  how  is 
the  praise  of  the  whole  earth  surprised  I  .  .  .  And  I  will 
make  drunk  her  princes,  and  her  wise  men,  her  captains, 
and  her  rulers,  and  her  mighty  men  ;  and  they  shall 
sleep  a  perpetual  sleep,  and  not  wake,  saith  the  King, 
whose  name  is  the  Lord  of  hosts."  ^ 

The  sixth  chapter  puts  into  concrete  form  such 
passages  of  the  Psalmist  as  :  '*  My  soul  is  among  lions  : 
and  I  lie  even  among  them  that  are  set  on  fire,  even^ 
the  sons  of  men,  whose  teeth  are  spears  and  arrows, 
and  their  tongue  a  sharp  sword  "  ;  ^  and — ''  Break  the 
jaw-bones  of  the  hons,  O  Lord  "  ;  ^  and — **  They  have  cut 
off  my  hfe  in  the  dungeon,  and  cast  a  stone  upon  me"^: — 
and  more  generally  such  promises  as  those  in  Isaiah  : 
''  No  weapon  that  is  formed  against  thee  shall  prosper ; 
and  every  tongue  that  shall  rise  against  thee  in  judg- 
ment thou  shalt  condemn.  This  is  the  heritage  of  the 
servants  of  the  Lord,  and  their  righteousness  is  of  Me, 
saith  the  Lord."^ 

This  genesis  of  Haggadoth  is  remarkably  illustrated 
by  the  apocryphal  additions  to  Daniel.  Thus  the  History 
of  Susanna  was  very  probably  suggested  by  Jeremiah's 
allusion  (xxix.  22)  to  the  two  false  prophets  Ahab  and 
Zedekiah,  whom  Nebuchadrezzar  burnt.^  Similarly  the 
story  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon  is  a  fiction  which  ex- 
pounds Jer.  h.  44 :  ''  And  I  will  punish  Bel  in  Babylon, 


'  The  word  is  a  cabalistic  cryptogram — an  instance  of  Gematria — 
for  Babel. 

2  Jer.  li.  28-57. 
^  Psalm  Ivii.  4. 

*  Psalm  Iviii.  6. 

*  Lam.  iii.  53. 
^  Isa.  liv.  17. 

*  Sanhedrin,  f.  93,  l.     See  another  story  in  Vayyikra  Rabba,  c.  xix. 


STOPPING   THE  MOUTHS   OF  LIONS  221 

and  I  will  bring  forth  out  of  his  mouth  that  which  he 
hath  swallowed  up."^ 

Hitherto  the  career  of  Daniel  had  been  personally 
prosperous.  We  have  seen  him  in  perpetual  honour 
and  exaltation,  and  he  had  not  even  incurred — though 
he  may  now  have  been  ninety  years  old — such  early 
trials  and  privations  in  a  heathen  land  as  had  fallen 
to  the  lot  of  Joseph,  his  youthful  prototype.  His  three 
companions  had  been  potential  martyrs;  he  had  not 
even  been  a  confessor.  Terrible  as  was  the  doom 
which  he  had  twice  been  called  upon  to  pronounce 
upon  Nebuchadrezzar  and  upon  his  kingdom,  the  stern 
messages  of  prophecy,  so  far  from  involving  him  in 
ruin,  had  only  helped  to  uplift  him  to  the  supremest 
honours.  Not  even  the  sternness  of  his  bearing,  and 
the  terrible  severity  of  his  interpretations  of  the  flaming 
message  to  Belshazzar,  had  prevented  him  from  being 
proclaimed  triumvir,  and  clothed  in  scarlet,  and  de- 
corated with  a  chain  of  gold,  on  the  last  night  of  the 
Babylonian  Empire.  And  now  a  new  king  of  a  new 
dynasty  is  represented  as  seated  on  the  throne ;  and 
it  might  well  have  seemed  that  Daniel  was  destined  to 
close  his  days,  not  only  in  peace,  but  in  consummate 
outward  felicity. 

Darius  the  Mede  began  his  reign  by  appointing 
one  hundred  and  twenty  princes  over  the  whole  king- 
dom;^ and  over  these  he  placed  three  presidents.  Daniel 
is   one  of  these   *'  eyes "  of  the    king.^     *'  Because  an 

»  Bereshith  Rabba,  §  68. 

2  The  LXX.  says  127,  and  Josephus  (Antt.,  X.  xi.  4)  says  360 
(comp.  Esther  i.  i,  viii.  9,  ix.  3).  Under  Darius,  son  of  Hystaspes, 
there  were  only  twenty  divisions  of  the  empire  (Herod.,  iii.  89). 

^  Dan.  vi.  2  :  "Of  whom  Daniel  was  " — not  "/irst"  as  in  A.V., 
but  "  one,"  R.V. 


THE  BOOK   OF  DANIEL 


excellent  spirit  was  in  him,"  he  acquired  preponderant 
influence  among  the  presidents ;  and  the  king,  con- 
sidering that  Daniel's  integrity  would  secure  him  from 
damage  in  the  royal  accounts,  designed  to  set  him  over 
the  whole  realm. 

But  assuming  that  the  writer  is  dealing,  not  with  the 
real,  but  with  tha  ideal,  something  would  be  lacking  to 
Daniel's  eminent  saintliness,  if  he  were  not  set  forth 
as  no  less  capable  of  martyrdom  on  behalf  of  his  con- 
victions than  his  three  companions  had  been.  From 
the  fiery  trial  in  which  their  faithfulness  had  been 
proved  like  gold  in  the  furnace  he  had  been  exempt. 
His  life  thus  far  had  been  a  course  of  unbroken  pros- 
perity. But  the  career  of  a  pre-eminent  prophet  and 
saint  hardly  seems  to  have  won  its  final  crown,  unless 
he  also  be  called  upon  to  mount  his  Calvary,  and  to 
share  with  all  prophets  and  all  saints  the  persecutions 
which  are  the  inva.riable  concomitants  of  the  hundred- 
fold reward.^  Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abed-nego  had 
been  tested  in  early  youth  :  the  trial  of  Daniel  is  re- 
served for  his  extreme  old  age.  It  is  not,  it  could  not 
be,  a  severer  trial  than  that  which  his  friends  braved, 
nor  could  his  deliverance  be  represented  as  more  super- 
natural or  more  complete,  unless  it  were  that  they 
endured  only  for  a  few  moments  the  semblable  violence 
of  the  fire,  while  he  was  shut  up  for  all  the  long  hours 
of  night  alone  in  the  savage  lions'  den.  There  are, 
nevertheless,  two  respects  in  which  this  chapter  serves 
as  a  climax  to  those  which  preceded  it.  On  the  one 
hand,  the  virtue  of  Daniel  is  of  a  marked  character  in 
that  it  IS  positive,  and  not  negative — in  that  it  consists, 
not  in  rejecting  an  overt  sin  of  idolatry,  but  in  con- 


Matt,  xix.  29, 


STOPPING   THE  MOUTHS  OF  LIONS  223 

tinuing  the  private  duty  of  prayer;  on  the  other,  the 
decree  of  Darius  surpasses  even  those  of  Nebuchadrezzar 
in  the  intensity  of  its  acknowledgment  of  the  supremacy 
of  Israel's  God. 

Daniel's  age — for  by  this  time  he  must  have  passed 
the  allotted  limit  of  man's  threescore  years  and  ten — 
might  have  exempted  him  from  envy,  even  if,  as  the 
LXX.  adds,  ''  he  was  clad  in  purple."  But  jealous  that 
a  captive  Jew  should  be  exalted  above  all  the  native 
satraps  and  potentates  by  the  king's  favour,  his  col- 
leagues the  presidents  (whom  the  LXX.  calls  "  two 
young  men")  and  the  princes  ^^ rushed''''  before  the 
king  with  a  request  which  they  thought  would  enable 
them  to  overthrow  Daniel  by  subtlety.  Faithfulness 
is  required  in  stewards ;  ^  and  they  knew  that  his  faith- 
fulness and  wisdom  were  such  that  they  would  be 
unable  to  undermine  him  in  any  ordinary  way.  There 
was  but  one  point  at  which  they  considered  him  to  be 
vulnerable,  and  that  was  in  any  matter  which  affected 
his  allegiance  to  an  alien  worship.  But  it  was  difficult 
to  invent  an  incident  which  would  give  them  the  sought- 
for  opportunity.  All  polytheisms  are  as  tolerant  as 
their  priests  will  let  them  be.  The  worship  of  the 
Jews  in  the  Exile  was  of  a  necessarily  private  nature. 
They  had  no  Temple,  and  such  religious  gatherings  as 
they  held  were  in  no  sense  unlawful.  The  problem 
of  the  writer  was  to  manage  his  Haggada  in  such  a 
way  as  to  make  private  prayer  an  act  of  treason ;  and 
the  difficulty  is  met — not,  indeed,  without  violent  im- 
probability, for  which,  however,  Jewish  haggadists 
cared  little,  but  with  as  much  skill  as  the  circumstances 
permitted. 

'   I  Cor.  iv.  2. 


224  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

The  phrase  that  they  "made  a  tumult  "  or  '*  rushed  "  ^ 
before  the  king,  which  recurs  in  vi.  ii  and  i8,  is 
singular,  and  looks  as  if  it  were  intentionally  grotesque 
by  way  of  satire.  The  etiquette  of  Oriental  courts  is 
always  most  elaborately  stately,  and  requires  solemn 
obeisance.  This  is  why  ^schylus  makes  Agamemnon 
say,  in  answer  to  the  too-obsequious  fulsomeness  of 
his  false  wife, — 

"  Koi  ToWa,  117)  yvvaiKos  iv  TpSirois  ifik 
a^pvve,  fjLTjde  ^ap^dpov  (pcorbs  5lKrfV 

"  Besides,  prithee,  use  not  too  fond  a  care 
To  me,  as  to  some  virgin  whom  thou  strivest 
To  deck  with  ornaments,  whose  softness  looks 
Softer,  hung  round  the  softness  of  her  youth  ; 
Ope  not  the  mouth  to  me,  nor  cry  amain 
As  at  the  footstool  of  a  man  of  the  East 
Prone  on  the  ground  :  so  stoop  not  thou  to  me ! " 

That  these  "presidents  and  satraps,"  instead  of  trying 
to  win  the  king  by  such  flatteries  and  "  gaping  upon 
him  an  earth-grovelling  howl,"  should  on  each  occasion 
have  "  rushed "  into  his  presence,  must  be  regarded 
either  as  a  touch  of  intentional  sarcasm,  or,  at  any  rate, 
as  being  more  in  accord  with  the  rude  familiarities  of 
licence  permitted  to  the  courtiers  of  the  half-mad 
Antiochus,  than  with  the  prostrations  and  solemn 
approaches  which  since  the  days  of  Deioces  would 
alone  have  been  permitted  by  any  conceivable  '*  Darius 
the  Mede." 

However,  after  this  tumultuous  intrusion  into  the 
king's  presence,   "  all  the    presidents,  governors,  chief 

*  Dan.  vi.  6,  char' ggtshoo  ;  Vulg.,  surripuerunt  regi;  A.V.  marg., 
"came  tumultuously."  The  word  is  found  in  the  Targum  in  Ruth  i.  19 
(Bevan). 


STOPPING    THE  MOUTHS   OF  LIONS  225 

chamberlains,"  present  to  him  the  monstrous  but 
unanimous  request  that  he  would,  by  an  irrevocable 
interdict,  forbid  that  any  man  should,  for  thirty  days, 
ask  any  petition  of  any  god  or  man,  on  peril  of  being 
cast  into  the  den  of  lions.^ 

Professor  Fuller,  in  the  Speaker's  Commentary^  con- 
siders that  '*  this  chapter  gives  a  valuable  as  well  as  an 
interesting  insight  into  Median  customs,"  because  the 
king  is  represented  as  living  a  secluded  life,  and  keeps 
lions,  and  is  practically  deified  !  The  importance  of 
the  remark  is  far  from  obvious.  The  chapter  presents 
no  particular  picture  of  a  secluded  life.  On  the  contrary, 
the  king  moves  about  freely,  and  his  courtiers  seem 
to  have  free  access  to  him  whenever  they  choose.  As 
for  the  semi-deification  of  kings,  it  was  universal 
throughout  the  East,  and  even  Antiochus  II.  had  openly 
taken  the  surname  of  Theos,  the  "god."  Again,  every 
Jew  throughout  the  world  must  have  been  very  well 
aware,  since  the  days  of  the  Exile,  that  Assyrian  and 
other  monarchs  kept  dens  of  lions,  and  occasionally 
flung  their  enemies  to  them.^  But  so  far  as  the  decree 
of  Darius  is  concerned,  it  may  well  be  said  that  through- 
out all  history  no  single  parallel  to  it  can  be  quoted. 
Kings  have  very  often  been  deified  in  absolutism ;  but 
not  even  a  mad  Antiochus,  a  mad  Caligula,  a  mad 
Elagabalus,  or  a  mad  Commodus  ever  dreamt  of  passing 
an  interdict  that  no  one  was  to  prefer  any  petition 
either  to  God  or  man  for  thirty  days,  except  to  himself ! 
A  decree  so  preposterous,  which  might  be  violated  by 
millions    many   times    a   day  without    the    king    being 

'  The  den  {goob  or  gubba)  seems  to  mean  a  vault.  The  Hebrew 
word  for  "  pit "  is  boor. 

2  See  Layard,  Nin.  and  Bab.,  i.  335,  447,  475  ;  Smith,  Hist,  of 
Assur-bam'-pal,  xxiv. 

15 


226  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

cognisant  of  it,  would  be  a  proof  of  positive  imbecility 
in  any  king  who  should  dream  of  making  it.  Strange, 
too — though  a  matter  of  indifference  to  the  writer, 
because  it  did  not  affect  his  moral  lesson — that  Darius 
should  not  have  noticed  the  absence  of  his  chief 
official,  and  the  one  man  in  whom  he  placed  the  fullest 
and  deepest  confidence. 

The  king,  v/ithout  giving  another  thought  to  the 
matter,  at  once  signs  the  irrevocable  decree. 

It  naturally  does  not  make  the  least  difference  to 
the  practices  or  the  purpose  of  Daniel.  His  duty 
towards  God  transcends  his  duty  to  man.  He  has 
been  accustomed,  thrice  a  day,  to  kneel  and  pray  to 
God,  with  the  window  of  his  upper  chamber  open, 
looking  towards  the  Kibleh  of  Jerusalem;^  and  the 
king's  decree  makes  no  change  in  his  manner  of  daily 
worship. 

Then  the  princes  "  rushed  "  thither  again,  and  found 
Daniel  praying  and  asking  petitions  before  his  God. 

Instantly  they  go  before  the  king,  and  denounce 
Daniel  for  his  triple  daily  defiance  of  the  sacrosanct 
decree,  showing  that  ^'  he  regardeth  not  thee,  O  king, 
nor  the  decree  that  thou  hast  signed." 

Their  denunciations  produced  an  effect  very  different 
from  what  they  had  intended.  They  had  hoped  to 
raise  the  king's  wrath  and  jealousy  against  Daniel, 
as    one    who   lightly   esteemed    his    divine  autocracy. 

'  The  chamber  was  perhaps  supposed  to  be  a  vTre pt^ou  on  the  roof. 
The  "kneeHng"  in  prayer  (as  in  I  Kings  viii.  54;  2  Chron.  vi.  13; 
Ezra  ix.  5)  is  in  the  East  a  less  common  attitude  than  standing.  See 
1  Sam.  i.  26 ;  Mark  xi.  25  ;  Luke  xviii.  1 1  :  but  see  Neh.  viii.  6  ; 
Gen.  xxiv.  26. 

The  Temple,  and  Jerusalem,  was  the  Kibleh,  or  sacred  direction  of 
devotion  (l  Kings  viii.  44;  Ezek.  viii.  16;  Psalm  v,  7,  xxviii,  2,  Iv.  17, 
etc.). 


STOPPING   THE  MOUTHS  OF  LIONS  227 

But  SO  far  from  having  any  such  ignoble  feeling,  the 
king  only  sees  that  he  has  been  an  utter  fool,  the 
dupe  of  the  worthlessness  of  his  designing  courtiers.^ 
All  his  anger  was  against  himself  for  his  own  folly  ; 
his  sole  desire  was  to  save  the  man  whom  for  his 
integrity  and  ability  he  valued  more  than  the  whole 
crew  of  base  plotters  who  had  entrapped  him  against 
his  will  into  a  stupid  act  of  injustice.  All  day,  till 
sunset,  he  laboured  hard  to  deliver  Daniel.^  The 
whole  band  of  satraps  and  chamberlains  feel  that  this 
will  not  do  at  all ;  so  they  again  '^  rush "  to  the  king 
to  remind  him  of  the  Median  and  Persian  law  that 
no  decree  which  the  king  has  passed  can  be  altered.^ 
To  alter  it  would  be  a  confession  of  fallibility,  and 
therefore  an  abnegation  of  godhead  1  Yet  the  strenuous 
action  which  he  afterwards  adopted  shows  that  he 
might,  even  then,  have  acted  on  the  principle  which 
the  mages  laid  down  to  Cambyses,  son  of  Cyrus,  that 
**  the  king  can  do  no  wrong."  There  seems  to  be  no 
reason  why  he  should  not  have  told  these  *'  tumultuous  " 
princes  that  if  they  interfered  with  Daniel  they  should 
be  flung  into  the  lions'  den.  This  would  probably 
have  altered  their  opinion  as  to  pressing  the  royal 
infallibility  of  irreversible  decrees. 

But  as  this  resource  did  not  suggest  itself  to 
Darius,  nothing  could  be  done  except  to  cast  Daniel 
into  the  den  or  "  pit "  of  lions  ;  but  in  sentencing  him 
the  king  offers  the  prayer,  *'  May  the  God  whom  thou 
servest  continually  deliver  thee ! "  ^     Then  a   stone  is 


'  Comp.  Mark  vi.  26. 

-  Tlieodot,,  ayo}vi^bixevo$. 

^  Esther  i.  19,  viii.  8. 

■*  "  Courage,  till  to-morrow  "  (^ws  irpoot  Odppei),  adds  the  LXX. 


228  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


laid  over  the  mouth  of  the  pit,  and,  for  the  sake  of 
double  security,  that  even  the  king  may  not  have  the 
power  of  tampering  with  it,  it  is  sealed,  not  only  with 
his  own  seal,  but  also  with  that  of  his  lords.^ 

From  the  lion-pit  the  king  went  back  to  his  palace, 
but  only  to  spend  a  miserable  night.  He  could  take 
no  food.^  No  dancing-women  were  summoned  to  his 
harem ;  ^  no  sleep  visited  his  eyelids.  At  the  first 
glimpse  of  morning  he  rose,*  and  went  with  haste 
to  the  den — taking  the  satraps  with  him,  adds  the  LXX. 
— and  cried  with  a  sorrowful  voice,  "  O  Daniel,  servant 
of  the  living  God,  hath  thy  God  whom ,  thou  servest 
continually  been  able  to  deliver  thee  from  the  lions  ?  " 

And  the  voice  of  the  prophet  answered,  ^'  O  king, 
live  for  ever !  My  God  sent  His  angel,^  and  shut  the 
mouths  of  the  lions,  that  they  should  not  destroy  me  : 
forasmuch  as  before  Him  innocency  was  found  in  me  ; 
and  also  before  thee,  ,0  king,  have  I  committed  no 
offence." 

Thereupon  the  happy  king  ordered  that  Daniel  should 
be  taken  up  out  of  the  lion-pit ;  and  he  was  found  to  be 
unhurt,  because  he  believed  in  his  God. 

We  would  have  gladly  spared  the  touch  of  savagery 
with  which  the  story  ends.     The  deliverance  of  Daniel 


'  Comp.  Lam.  iii.  53.  Seal-rings  are  very  ancient  (Herod.,  i.  195). 
It  is  useless  to  speculate  on  the  construction  of  the  lion-pit.  The 
only  opening  mentioned  seems  to  have  been  at  the  top ;  but  there 
must  necessarily  have  been  side-openings  also. 

^  Theodot.,  eKOiix-qd-q  dSenrvos.  Daniel,  on  the  other  hand,  in  the 
apocryphal  Haggada,  gets  his  dinner  miraculously  from  the  Prophet 
Habakkuk. 

^  Heb.,  dachavdn)  R.V.,  ''instruments  of  music";  R.V.  marg., 
"  dancing-girls  "  ;  Gesenius,  Zockler,  etc.,  "  concubines." 

*  Theodot.,  rb  irpiol  ev  T(p  (pojrL 

^  Comp.  Dan.  iii.  8;  Psalm  xxxiv.  7^10  J  Acts  xii.  11. 


STOPPING   THE  MOUTHS   OF  LIONS  229 

made  no  difference  in  the  guilt  of  his  accusers.  What 
they  had  charged  him  with  was  a  fact,  and  was  a 
transgression  of  the  ridiculous  decree  which  they  had 
caused  the  king  to  pass.  But  his  deliverance  was 
regarded  as  a  Divine  judgment  upon  them — as  proof 
that  vengeance  should  fall  on  them.  Accordingly,  not 
they  only,  but,  with  the  brutal  solidarity  of  revenge 
and  punishment  which,  in  savage  and  semi-civilised 
races,  confounds  the  innocent  with  the  guilty,  their 
wives  and  even  their  children  were  also  cast  into  the 
den  of  lions,  and  they  did  not  reach  the  bottom  of  the 
pit  before  *'  the  lions  got  hold  of  them  and  crushed  all 
their  bones."  ^  They  are  devoured,  or  caught,  by  the 
hungry  lions  in  mid-air. 

''Then  King  Darius  wrote  to  all  the  natio"ns,  com- 
munities, and  tongues  who  dwell  in  the  whole  world, 
May  your  peace  be  multiplied  !  I  make  a  decree.  That 
in  every  dominion  of  my  kingdom  men  tremble  and 
fear  before  the  God  of  Daniel :  for  He  is  the  living  God, 
and  steadfast  for  ever,  and  His  kingdom  that  which 
shall  not  be  destroyed,  and  His  dominion  even  unto  the 
end.  He  delivereth  and  He  rescueth,  and  He  worketh 
signs  and  wonders  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  who  delivered 
Daniel  from  the  power  of  the  lions." 

The  language,  as  in  Nebuchadrezzar's  decrees,  is 
purely  Scriptural.^  What  the  Median  mages  and  the 
Persian  fire-worshippers  would  think  of  such  a  decree, 


■  Comp.  Esther  ix.  13,  14 ;  Josh.  vii.  24;  2  Sam.  xxi.  1-6.  The  LXX. 
modifies  the  savagery  of  the  story  by  making  the  vengeance  fall  only 
on  the  two  young  men  who  were  Daniel's  fellow-presidents.  But 
comp.  Herod.,  iii.  119;  Am.  Marcell.,  xxiii.  6;  and  '•  Ob  noxam  unius 
omnis  propinquitas  perit,"  etc. 

"^  Psalm  xxix.  I,  x.  16,  etc.  Professor  Fuller  calls  it  •'  a  Mazdean 
colouring  in  the  language  "  1 


230  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


and  whether  it  produced  the  slightest  effect  before  it 
vanished  without  leaving  a  trace  behind,  are  questions 
with  which  the  author  of  the  story  is  not  concerned.  ^ 

He  merely  adds  that  Daniel  prospered  in  the  reign 
of  Darius  and  of  Cyrus  the  Persian. 


PART    III 
THE    PROPHETIC  SECTION   OF   THE    BOOK 


231 


CHAPTER     I 

VISION    OF    THE    FOUR    WILD    BEASTS 

WE  now  enter  upon  the  second  division  of  the 
Book  of  Daniel — the  apocalyptic.  It  is  un- 
questionably inferior  to  the  first  part  in  grandeur  and 
importance  as  a  whole,  but  it  contains  not  a  few  great 
conceptions,  and  it  was  well  adapted  to  inspire  the 
hopes  and  arouse  the  heroic  courage  of  the  persecuted 
Jews  in  the  terrible  days  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 
Daniel  now  speaks  in  the  first  person,^  whereas 
throughout  the  historic  section  of  the  Book  the  third 
person  has  been  used. 

In  the  form  of  apocalypse  which  he  adopts  he  had 
already  had  partial  precursors  in  Ezekiel  and  Zechariah  ; 
but  their  symbolic  visions  were  far  less  detailed  and 
developed — it  may  be  added  far  more  poetic  and 
classical — than  his.  And  in  later  apocalypses,  for 
which  this  served  as  a  model,  little  regard  is  paid 
to  the  grotesqueness  or  incongruity  of  the  symbols, 
if  only  the  intended  conception  is  conveyed.  In  no 
previous  writer  of  the  grander  days  of  Hebrew  litera- 
ture would  such  symbols  have  been  permitted  as  horns 
which  have  eyes  and  speak,  or  lions  from  which  the 
wings  are  plucked,  and  which  thereafter  stand  on  their 
feet  as  a  man,  and  have  a  man's  heart  given  to  them. 

'  Except  in  the  heading  of  chap.  x. 
233 


234  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

The  vision  is  dated,  "  In  the  first  year  of  Belshazzar, 
King  of  Babylon."  It  therefore  comes  chronologically 
between  the  fourth  and  fifth  chapters.  On  the  pseud- 
epigraphic  view  of  the  Book  we  may  suppose  that  this 
date  is  merely  a  touch  of  literary  verisimilitude,  designed 
to  assimilate  the  prophecies  to  the  form  of  those  uttered 
by  the  ancient  prophets ;  or  perhaps  it  may  be  intended 
to  indicate  that  with  three  of  the  four  empires — the 
Babylonian,  the  Median,  and  the  Persian — Daniel  had 
a  persona]  acquaintance.  Beyond  this  we  can  see  no 
significance  in  the  date ;  for  the  predictions  which  are 
here  recorded  have  none  of  that  immediate  relation  to 
the  year  in  which  they  originated  which  we  see  in  the 
writings  of  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah.  Perhaps  the  verse 
itself  is  a  later  guess  or  gloss,  since  there  are  slight 
variations  in  Theodotion  and  the  LXX.  Daniel,  we  are 
told,  both  saw  and  wrote  and  narrated  the  dream. ^ 

In  the  vision  of  the  night  he  had  seen  the  four  winds 
of  heaven  travailing,  or  bursting  forth,  on  the  great 
sea ;  ^  and  from  those  tumultuous  waves  came  four 
immense  wild  beasts,  each  unhke  the  other. 

The  first  was  a  lion,  with  four  eagles'  wings.  The 
wings  were  plucked  off,  and  it  then  raised  itself  from 
the  earth,  stood  on  its  feet  like  a  man,  and  a  man's 
heart  was  given  to  it. 

The  second  was  like  a  bear,  raising  itself  on  one  side, 

'  In  the  opinion  of  Lagarde  and  others  this  chapter — which  is 
not  noticed  by  Josephus,  and  which  Meinhold  thinks  cannot  have 
been  written  by  the  author  of  chap,  ii.,  since  it  says  nothing  of  the 
sufferings  or  deliverance  of  Israel — did  not  belong  to  the  original  form 
of  the  Book.  Lagarde  thinks  that  it  was  written  a.d.  69,  after  the 
persecution  of  the  Christians  by  Nero. 

^  St.  Ephraem  Syrus  says,  "The  sea  is  the  world."  Isa.  xvii.  12, 
xxvii.  I,  xxxii.  2.  But  compare  Dan.  vii.  17 ;  Ezek.  xxix.  3  ;  Rev. 
xiii.   I,  xvii.   1-8,  xxi.l. 


VISION  OF  THE  FOUR   WILD  BEASTS  235 

and  having  three  ribs  between  its  teeth  ;  and  it  is  bidden 
to  "arise  and  devour  much  flesh." 

The  third  is  a  leopard,  or  panther,  with  four  wings 
and  four  heads,  to  which  dominion  is  given. 

The  fourth — a  yet  more  terrible  monster,  which  is 
left  undescribed,  as  though  indescribable — has  great 
devouring  teeth  of  iron,  and  feet  that  stamp  and  crush.^ 
It  has  ten  horns,  and  among  them  came  up  a  little  horn, 
before  which  three  of  the  others  are  plucked  up  by  the 
roots;  and  this  horn  has  eyes,  and  a  mouth  speaking- 
great  things. 

Then  the  thrones  were  set  for  the  Divine  judges,^  and 
the  Ancient  of  Days  seats  Himself — His  raiment  as  white 
snow,  His  hair  as  bright  wool.  His  throne  of  flames, 
His  wheels  of  burning  fire.  A  stream  of  dazzling 
fire  goes  out  before  Him.  Thousand  thousands  stand 
before  Him ;  ten  thousand  times  ten  thousand  minister 
to  Him.  The  judgment  is  set ;  the  books  are  opened. 
The  fourth  monster  is  then  slain  and  burned  because  of 
the  blaspheming  horn ;  the  other  beasts  are  suffered  to 
live  for  a  season  and  a  time,  but  their  dominion  is 
taken  away.^ 

But  then,  in  the  night  vision,  there  came  ''  one  even 
as  a  son  of  man  "  with  the  clouds  of  heaven,  and  is 
brought  before  the  Ancient  of  Days,  and  receives  from 
Him  power  and  glory  and  a  kingdom — an  everlasting 
dominion,  a  kingdom  that  shall  not  be  destroyed — over 
all  people y  nations,  and  languages. 

'  In  the  vision  of  the  colossus  in  ii.  41-43  stress  is  laid  on  the 
division  of  the  fourth  empire  into  stronger  and  weaker  elements 
(iron  and  clay).     That  point  is  here  passed  over. 

"^  A.V.,  "  the  thrones  were  cast  dow^n." 

3  In  ii.  35,  44,  the  four  empires  are  represented  as  finally  destroyed. 


2  36  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

Such  is  the  vision,  and  its  interpretation  follows. 
The  heart  of  Daniel  ''is  pierced  in  the  midst  of  its 
sheath"  by  what  he  has  seen,  and  the  visions  of  his  head 
troubled  him.  Coming  near  to  one  of  them  that  stood 
by — the  angelic  ministrants  of  the  Ancient  of  Days — 
he  begs  for  an  interpretation  of  the  vision. 

It  is  given  him  with  extreme  brevity. 

The  four  wild  beasts  represent  four  kings,  the 
founders  of  four  successive  kingdoms.  But  the  ultimate 
and  eternal  dominion  is  not  to  be  with  them.  _  It  is  to 
be  given,  till  the  eternities  of  the  eternities,  to  "  the  holy 
ones  of  the  Lofty  One."  ^ 

What  follows  is  surely  an  indication  of  the  date  of 
the  Book.  Daniel  is  quite  satisfied  with  this  meagre 
interpretation,  in  which  no  single  detail  is  given  as 
regards  the  first  three  world-empires,  which  one  would 
have  supposed  would  chiefly  interest  the  real  Daniel. 
His  whole  curiosity  is  absorbed  in  a  detail  of  the  vision 
of  the  fourth  monster.  It  is  all  but  inconceivable  that 
a  contemporary  prophet  should  have  felt  no  further 
interest  in  the  destinies  which  affected  the  great  golden 
Empire  of  Babylon  under  which  he  lived,  nor  in  those 
of  Media  and  Persia,  which  were  already  beginning  to 
loom  large  on  the  horizon,  and  should  have  cared  only 
for  an  incident  in  the  story  of  a  fourth  empire  as  yet 
unheard  of,  which  was  only  to  be  fulfilled  four  centuries 
later.  The  interests  of  every  other  Hebrew  prophet 
are  always  mainly  absorbed,  so  far  as  earthly  things 
are  concerned,  in  the  immediate  or  not-far-distant  future. 
That  is  true  also  of  the  author  of  Daniel,  if,  as  we  have 
had  reason  to  see,  he  wrote  under  the  rule  of  the 
persecuting  and  blaspheming  horn. 


A.V.  marg.,  ''  high  ones  " — i.e.,  things  or  places. 


VISION  OF  THE  FOUR   WILD  BEASTS  237 


In  his  appeal  for  the  interpretation  of  this  symbol 
there  are  fresh  particulars  about  this  horn  which  had 
eyes  and  spake  very  great  things.  We  are  told  that 
^'  his  look  was  more  stout  than  his  fellows  " ;  and  that 
"  he  made  war  against  the  saints  and  prevailed  against 
them,  until  the  Ancient  of  Days  came.  Then  judgment 
was  given  to  the  saints,  and  the  time  came  that  the 
saints  possessed  the  kingdom." 

The  interpretation  is  that  the  fourth  beast  is  an 
earth-devouring,  trampling,  shattering  kingdom,  diverse 
from  all  kingdoms ;  its  ten  horns  are  ten  kings  that 
shall  arise  -from  it.^  Then  another  king  shall  arise, 
diverse  from  the  first,  who  shall  subdue  three  kings, 
shall  speak  blasphemies,  shall  wear  out  the  saints,  and 
will  strive  to  change  times  and  laws.  But  after  *'  a 
time,  two  times,  and  a  half,"  ^  the  judgment  shall  sit, 
and  he  will  be  annihilated,  and  his  dominion  shall  be 
given  for  ever  to  the  people  of  the  saints  of  the  Most 
High. 

Such  was  the  vision  ;  such  its  interpretation ;  and 
there  can  be  no  difficulty  as  to  its  general  significance. 

I.  That  the  four  empires,  and  their  founders,  are 
not  identical  with  the  four  empires  of  the  metal  colossus 
in  Nebuchadrezzar's  dream,  is  an  inference  which, 
apart  from  dogmatic  bias,  would  scarcely  have  occurred 
to  any  unsophisticated  reader.  To  the  imagination  of 
Nebuchadrezzar,  the  heathen  potentate,  they  would 
naturally  present  themselves  in  their  strength  and 
towering  grandeur,  splendid  and  impassive  and  secure, 
till  the  mysterious  destruction  smites  them.  To  the 
Jewish    seer    they    present   themselves   in    their   cruel 


Not  kingdoms,  as  in  viii.  8. 

Comp.  Rev.  xii.  14;  Luke  iv.  25 ;  James  v.  17. 


238  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

ferocity  and  headstrong  ambition  as  destroying  wild 
beasts.  The  symbohsm  would  naturally  occur  to  all 
who  were  familiar  with  the  winged  bulls  and  lions 
and  other  gigantic  representations  of  monsters  which 
decorated  the  palace-walls  of  Nineveh  and  Babylon. 
Indeed,  similar  imagery  had  already  found  a  place  on 
the  prophetic  page.^ 

II.  The  turbulent  sea,  from  which  the  immense 
beasts  emerge  after  the  struggling  of  the  four  winds  of 
heaven  upon  its  surface,  is  the  sea  of  nations.^ 

III.  The  first  great  beast  is  Nebuchadrezzar  and 
the  Babylonian  Empire.^  There  is  nothing  strange  in 
the  fact  that  there  should  be  a  certain  transfusion  or 
overlapping  of  the  symbols,  the  object  not  being  literary 
congruity,  but  the  creation  of  a  general  impression. 
He  is  represented  as  a  lion,  because  lions  were  pre- 
valent in  Babylonia,  and  were  specially  prominent  in 
Babylonian  decorations.  His  eagle- wings  symbolise 
rapacity  and  swiftness.*  But,  according  to  the  narra- 
tive already  given,  a  change  had  come  over  the  spirit 
of  Nebuchadrezzar  in  his  latter  days.  That  subduing 
and  softening  by  the  influence  of  a  Divine  power  is 
represented  by  the  plucking  off  of  the  lion's  eagle- 
wings,  and  its  fall  to  earth.  But  it  was  not  left  to  lie 
there  in  impotent  degradation.     It  is  lifted  up  from  the 

'  Isa.  xxvii.  I,  li.  9;  Ezek.  xxix.  3,  xxxii.  2. 

^  Comp.  Job  xxxviii.  16,  17  ;  Isa.  viii.  7,  xvii.  12. 

^  Comp.  Dan.  ii.  38.  Jeremiah  had  likened  Nebuchadrezzar  both  to 
the  lion  (iv.  7,  xhx.  19,  etc.)  and  to  the  eagle  (xlviii.  40,  xlix.  22). 
Ezekiel  had  compared  the  king  (xvii.  3),  and  Habakkuk  his  armies 
(i.  8),  as  also  Jeremiah  (iv.  13  ;  Lam.  iv.  19),  to  the  eagle  (Pusey, 
p.  690).  See  too  Layard,  Nin.  and  Bab.,  ii.  460.  For  other  beast- 
symbols  see  Isa.  xxvii.  I,  li.  9 ;  Ezek.  xxix,  3  ;  Psalm  Ixxiv.  13. 

■•  Comp.  Jer.  iv.  7,  13,  xlix,  16 ;  Ezek.  xvii.  3,  12 ;  Hab.  i.  8  ;  Lam. 
iv.   19. 


VISION  OF  THE  FOUR    WILD  BEASTS  239 

earth,  and  humanised,  and  made  to  stand  on  its  feet  as 
a  man,  and  a  man's  heart  is  given  to  it.^ 

IV.  The  bear,  which  places  itself  upon  one  side,  is 
the  Median  Empire,  smaller  than  the  Chaldean,  as  the 
bear  is  smaller  and  less  formidable  than  the  lion.  The 
crouching  on  one  side  is  obscure.  It  is  explained  by 
some  as  implying  that  it  was  lower  in  exaltation  than 
the  Babylonian  Empire  ;  by  others  that  ''  it  gravitated, 
as  regards  its  power,  only  towards  the  countries  west 
of  the  Tigris  and  Euphrates."^  The  meaning  of  the 
"  three  ribs  in  its  mouth "  is  also  uncertain.  Some 
regard  the  number  three  as  a  vague  round  number; 
others  refer  it  to  the  three  countries  over  which  the 
Median  dominion  extended — Babylonia,  Assyria,  and 
Syria ;  others,  less  probably,  to  the  three  chief  cities. 
The  command,  ''  Arise,  devour  much  flesh,"  refers  to 
the  prophecies  of  Median  conquest,^  and  perhaps  to 
uncertain  historical  reminiscences  which  confused 
''  Darius  the  Mede  "  with  Darius  the  son  of  Hystaspes. 
Those  who  explain  this  monster  as  an  emblem,  not 
of  the  Median  but  of  the  Medo-Persian  Empire, 
neglect  the  plain  indications  of  the  Book  itself,  for  the 
author  regards  the  Median  and  Persian  Empires  as 
distinct.* 

V.  The  leopard   or  panther  represents  the  Persian 
kingdom.^     It  has  four  wings  on  its  back,  to  indicate 


*  The  use  of  enosh — not  eesh — indicates  chastening  and  weakness. 

2  Ewald. 

3  Isa.  xiii.  17;  Jer.  li.  11,  28.  Aristotle,  H.  N.,  viii.  5,  calls  the  bear 
7rdfjL(f)ayos,  "  all-devouring."  A  bear  appears  as  a  dream-symbol  in  an 
Assyrian  book  of  auguries  (Lenormant,  Magte,  492). 

*  Dan.  V.  28,  31,  vi.  8,  12,  15,  28,  viii.  20,  ix.  I,  xi.  i. 

*  The  composite  beast  of  Rev.  xiii.  2  combines  leopard,  bear,  and 
lion. 


240  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

how  freely  and  swiftly  it  soared  to  the  four  quarters  of 
the  world.  Its  four  heads  indicate  four  kings.  There 
were  indeed  twelve  or  thirteen  kings  of  Persia  between 
B.C.  536  and  B.C.  333;  but  the  author  of  the  Book  of 
Daniel,  who  of  course  had  no  books  of  history  before 
him,  only  thinks  of  the  four  who  were  most  prominent 
in  popular  tradition — namely  (as  it  would  seem),  Cyrus, 
Darius,  Artaxerxes,  and  Xerxes.^  These  are  the  only 
four  names  which  the  writer  knew,  because  they  are 
the  only  ones  which  occur  in  Scripture.  It  is  true  that 
the  Darius  of  Neh.  xii.  22  is  not  the  Great  Darius,  son 
of  Hystaspes,  but  Darius  Codomannus  (b.c.  424-404). 
But  this  fact  may  most  easily  have  been  overlooked  in 
uncritical  and  unhistoric  tim.es.  And  ''  power  was  given 
to  it,"  for  it  was  far  stronger  than  the  preceding  kingdom 
of  the  Medes. 

VI.  The  fourth  monster  won  its  chief  aspect  of 
terribleness  from  the  conquests  of  Alexander,  which 
blazed  over  the  East  with  such  irresistible  force  and 
suddenness.^  The  great  Macedonian,  after  his  massa- 
cres at  Tyre,  struck  into  the  Eastern  world  the  intense 
feeling  of  terror  which  we  still  can  recognise  in  the 
narrative  of  Josephus.  His  rule  is  therefore  symbolised 
by  a  monster  diverse  from  all  the  beasts  before  it  in 
its  sudden  leap  out  of  obscurity,  in  the  lightning-like 
rapidity  of  its  flash  from  West  to  East,  and  in  its 
instantaneous  disintegration  into  four  separate  kingdoms. 
It  is  with  one  only  of  those  four  kingdoms  of  the 
Diadochi,  the  one  which  so  terribly  affected  the  fortunes 
of  the   Holy   Land,  that  the   writer  is  predominantly 

'  Comp.  viii.  4-8. 

2  Battle  of  the  Granicus,  B.C.  334 ;  Battle  of  Issus,  333 ;  Siege  of 
Tyre,  332;  Battle  of  Arbela,  331  ;  Death  of  Darius,  330.  Alexander 
died  B.C.  323. 


VISION  OF   THE  FOUR    WILD  BEASTS  241 


concerned — namely,  the  empire  of  the  Seleucid  kings. 
It  is  in  that  portion  of  the  kingdom — namely,  from  the 
Euxine  to  the  confines  of  Arabia — that  the  ten  horns 
arise  which,  we  are  told,  symbolise  ten  kings.  It  seems 
almost  certain  that  these  ten  kings  are  intended  for  : — 

B.C. 

1.  SqIqwcws  I.  {Nicator)^         ....  312-280 

2.  Antiochus  I.  {Soter) 280-261 

3.  Antiochus  II.  {Theos) 261-246 

4.  Seleucus  II.  {Kallinikos)     ....  246-226 

5.  Seleucus  III.  {Keraunos)     ....  226-223 

6.  Antiochus  III.  {Megas)        ....  223-187 

7.  Seleucus  IV^  {Philopator)  ....  187-176 

Then  followed  the  three  kings  (actual  or  potential) 
who  were  plucked  up  before  the  little  horn  :  namely — 


8.  Demetrius 175 

9.  Heliodorus 176 

10.  Ptolemy  Philometor 181-146 

Of  these  three  who  succumbed  to  the  machinations 
of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  or  the  little  horn,^  the  first, 
Demetrius,  was  the  only  son  of  Seleucus  Philopator, 
and  true  heir  to  the  crown.  His  father  sent  him  to 
Rome  as  a  hostage,  and  released  his  brother  Antiochus. 
So  far  from  showing  gratitude  for  this  generosity, 
Antiochus,  on  the  murder  of  Seleucus  IV.  (b.c.  175), 
usurped  the  rights  of  his  nephew  (Dan.  xi.  21). 

The  .second,  Heliodorus,  seeing  that  Demetrius  the 


'  This  was  the  interpretation  given  by  the  great  father  Ephraem 
Syrus  in  the  first  century.  Hitzig,  Kuenen,  and  others  count  from 
Alexander  the  Great,  and  omit  Ptolemy  Philometor. 

^  Dan.  xi.  21. 

16 


242  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

heir  was  out  of  the  way,  poisoned  Seleucus  Philopator, 
and  himself  usurped  the  kingdom/ 

Ptolemy  Philometor  was  the  son  of  Cleopatra,  the 
sister  of  Seleucus  Philopator.  A  large  party  was  in 
favour  of  uniting  Egypt  and  Persia  under  his  rule. 
But  Antiochus  Epiphanes  ignored  the  compact  which 
had  made  Coele-Syria  and  Phoenicia  the  dower  of 
Cleopatra,  and  not  only  kept  Philometor  from  his 
rights,  but  would  have  deprived  him  of  Egypt  also  but 
for  the  strenuous  interposition  of  the  Romans  and  their 
ambassador  M.  Popilius  Laenas.^ 

When  the  three  horns  had  thus  fallen  before  him,  the 
little  horn — Antiochus  Epiphanes — sprang  into  promi- 
nence. The  mention  of  his  **eyes"  seems  to  be  a 
reference  to  his  shrewdness,  cunning,  and  vigilance.^ 
The  ''  mouth  that  spoke  very  great  things  "  ^  alludes  to 
the  boastful  arrogance  which  led  him  to  assume  the 
title  of  Epiphanes,  or  *'  the  illustrious " — which  his 
scornful  subjects  changed  into  Epimanes,  *'  the  mad  " — 
and  to  his  assumption  even  of  the  title  Theos,  "the 
god,"  on  some  of  his  coins. ^     His  look   ''  was  bigger 

*  Appian,  Syr.^  45  ;  Liv.,  xli.  24,  The  story  of  his  attempt  to  rob 
the  Temple  at  Jerusalem,  rendered  so  famous  by  the  great  picture  of 
Raphael  in  the  Vatican  stanze,  is  not  mentioned  by  Josephus,  but  only 
in  2  Mace.  iii.  24-40.  In  4  Mace,  it  is  told,  without  the  miracle,  of  Apollo- 
nius.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  something  of  the  kind  happened, 
but  it  was  perhaps  due  to  an  imposture  of  the  Jewish  high  priest. 

-  Porphyry  interpreted  the  three  kings  who  succumbed  to  the  little 
horn  to  be  Ptolemy  Philometor,  Ptolemy  Euergetes  II.,  and  Artaxias, 
King  of  Armenia.  The  critics  who  begin  the  ten  kings  with  Alexander 
the  Great  count  Seleucus  IV.  (Philopator)  as  one  of  the  three  who 
were  supplanted  by  Antiochus.  Von  Gutschmid  counts  as  one  of  the 
three  a  younger  brother  of  Demetrius,  said  to  have  been  murdered  by 
Antiochus  (Miiller,  Fr.  Hist.  Grcec,  iv.  558). 

^  Comp.  viii.  23. 

^  Comp.  \aXetv  /jLtyaXa  (Rev.  xiii.  5) ;  Hom.,  Od.,  xvi.  243. 

^  Comp.  xi.  36. 


VISION  OF  The  four   wild  beasts  243 

than  his  fellows,"  for  he  inspired  the  kings  of  Egypt 
and  other  countries  with  terror.  *'  He  made  war  against 
the  saints,"  with  the  aid  of  "Jason  and  Menelaus,  those 
ungodly  wretches,"  and  **  prevailed  against  them."  He 
"wore  out  the  saints  of  the  Most  High,"  for  he  took 
Jerusalem  by  storm,  plundered  it,  slew  eighty  thousand 
men,  women,  and  children,  took  forty  thousand  prisoners, 
and  sold  as  many  into  slavery  (b.c.  170)}  "As  he 
entered  the  sanctuary  to  plunder  it,  under  the  guidance 
of  the  apostate  high  priest  Menelaus,  he  uttered  words 
of  blasphemy,  and  he  carried  off  all  the  gold  and  silver 
he  could  find,  including  the  golden  table,  altar  of 
incense,  candlesticks,  and  vessels,  and  even  rifled  the 
subterraneous  vaults,  so  that  he  seized  no  less  than 
eighteen  hundred  talents  of  gold."  ^  He  then  sacrificed 
swine  upon  the  altar,  and  sprinkled  the  whole  Temple 
with  the  broth. 

Further  than  all  this,  "  he  thought  to  change  times  and 
laws" ;  and  they  were  ''given  into  his  hand  until  a  time^ 
and  two  times ,  and  a  half"  For  he  made  a  determined 
attempt  to  put  down  the  Jewish  feasts,  the  Sabbath, 
circumcision,  and  all  the  most  distinctive  Jewish  ordi- 
nances.^ In  B.C.  167,  two  years  after  his  cruel  devasta- 
tion of  the  city,  he  sent  Apollonius,  his  chief  collector 
of  tribute,  against  Jerusalem,  with  an  army  of  twenty- 
two   thousand   men.     On  the    first    Sabbath  after   his 

•  Jos.,  B.J.,  I.  i.  2,  VI.  X.  I.  In  Antt.y  XII.  v,  3,  Josephus  says  he 
took  Jerusalem  by  stratagem. 

■■^  Jahn,  Hebr.  Commonwealth,  §  xciv.  ;  Ewald,  Hist,  of  Isr.,  v. 
293-300. 

^  2  Mace.  iv.  9-15  :  "The  priests  had  no  courage  to  serve  any 
more  at  the  altar,  but  despising  the  Temple,  and  neglecting  the 
sacrifices,  hastened  to  be  partakers  of  the  unlawful  allowance  in  the 
place  of  exercise,  after  the  game  of  Discus  . .  .  not  setting  by  the  honours 
of  their  fathers,  but  liking  the  glory  of  the  Grecians  best  of  all," 


244  THE  BOOK   OF  DANIEL 

arrival,  ApoUonius  sent  his  soldiers  to  massacre  all  the 
men  whom  they  met  in  the  streets,  and  to  seize  the 
women  and  children  as  slaves.  He  occupied  the  castle 
on  Mount  Zion,  and  prevented  the  Jews  from  attending 
the  public  ordinances  of  their  sanctuar}^  Hence  in 
June  B.C.  167  the  daily  sacrifice  ceased,  and  the  Jews 
fled  for  their  lives  from  the  Holy  City.  Antiochus 
then  published  an  edict  forbidding  all  his  subjects  in 
Syria  and  elsewhere — even  the  Zoroastrians  in  Armenia 
and  Persia — to  worship  any  gods,  or  acknowledge  any 
rehgion  but  his.^  The  Jewish  sacred  books  were  burnt, 
and  not  only  the  Samaritans  but  many  Jews  apostatised, 
while  others  hid  themselves  in  mountains  and  deserts.^ 
He  sent  an  old  philosopher  named  Athenseus  to 
instruct  the  Jews  in  the  Greek  religion,  and  to  en- 
force its  observance.  He  dedicated  the  Temple  to  Zeus 
Olympios,  and  built  on  the  altar  of  Jehovah  a  smaller 
altar  for  sacrifice  to  Zeus,  to  whom  he  must  also  have 
erected  a  statue.  This  heathen  altar  was  set  up  on 
Kisleu  (December)  15,  and  the  heathen  sacrifice  began 
on  Kisleu  25.  All  observance  of  the  Jewish  Law  was 
now  treated  as  a  capital  crime.  The  Jews  were  forced 
to  sacrifice  in  heathen  groves  at  heathen  altars,  and  to 
walk,  crowned  with  ivy,  in  Bacchic  processions.  Two 
women  who  had  braved  the  despot's  wrath  by  cir- 
cumcising their  children  were  flung  from  the  Temple 
battlements  into  the  vale  below.^ 

The    triumph    of    this    blasphemous    and    despotic 


1  I  Mace.  i.  29-40;  2  Mace.  v.  24-26;  Jos.,  Anti.,  XII,  v.  4.     Comp. 
Dan.  xi.  30,  31.     See  Schurer,  i.  155  flf, 

2  Jerome,  Comm.  in  Dan.,  viii.,  ix. ;  Tac.,  Hist.^  v.  8;   I   Mace.  i. 
41-53 ;  2  Mace.  v.  27,  vi.  2  ;  Jos.,  Antt,  XII.  v.  4. 

^  I    Mace.    ii.   41-64,  iv.  54 ;   2  Mace.  vi.  1-9,  x.  5 ;    Jos.,  Antt.^ 
XII,  V.  4;  Dan.  xi.  31. 


VISION  OF  THE  FOUR    WILD  BEASTS  245 

savagery  was  arrested,  first  by  the  irresistible  force  of 
determined  martyrdom  which  preferred  death  to  un- 
faithfulness, and  next  by  the  armed  resistance  evoked 
by  the  heroism  of  Mattathias,  the  priest  at  Modin. 
When  Apelles  visited  the  town,  and  ordered  the  Jews 
to  sacrifice,  Mattathias  struck  down  with  his  own  hand 
a  Jew  who  was  preparing  to  obey.  Then,  aided  by  his 
strong  heroic  sons,  he  attacked  Apelles,  slew  him  and 
his  soldiers,  tore  down  the  idolatrous  altar,  and  with 
his  sons  and  adherents  fled  into  the  wilderness,  where 
they  were  joined  by  many  of  the  Jews. 

The  news  of  this  revolt  brought  Antiochus  to  Pales- 
tine in  B.C.  166,  and  among  his  other  atrocities  he 
ordered  the  execution  by  torture  of  the  venerable  scribe 
Eleazar,  and  of  the  pious  mother  with  her  seven  sons. 
In  spite  of  all  his  efforts  the  party  of  the  Chasidim 
grew  in  numbers  and  in  strength.  When  Mattathias 
died,  Judas  the  Maccabee  became  their  leader,  and  his 
brother  Simon  their  counsellor.^  While  Antiochus  was 
celebrating  his  mad  and  licentious  festival  at  Daphne, 
Judas  inflicted  a  severe  defeat  on  Apollonius,  and  won 
other  battles,  which  made  Antiochus  vow  in  an  access 
of  fury  that  he  would  exterminate  the  nation  (Dan.  xi. 
44).  But  he  found  himself  bankrupt,  and  the  Persians 
and  Armenians  were  revolting  from  him  in  disgust. 
He  therefore  sent  Lysias  as  his  general  to  Judaea,  and 
Lysias  assembled  an  immense  army  of  forty  thousand 
foot  and  seven  thousand  horse,  to  whom  Judas  could 
only  oppose  six  thousand  men.^  Lysias  pitched  his 
camp  at  Beth-shur,  south  of  Jerusalem.     There  Judas 

'  Maccabee  perhaps  means  "the  Hammerer"  (comp.  the  names 
Charles  Martel  and  Malleus  hcereticoruin).  Simeon  was  called 
Tadshi,  "  he  increases  "  (?  Gk.,  Qaaali). 

'  The  numbers  vary  in  the  records. 


246  THE  BOOK   OF  DANIEL 

attacked  him  with  irresistible  valour  and  confidence, 
slew  five  thousand  of  his  soldiers,  and  drove  the  rest  to 
flight. 

Lysias  retired  to  Antioch,  intending  to  renew  the 
invasion  next  year.  Thereupon  Judas  and  his  army 
recaptured  Jerusalem,  and  restored  and  cleansed  and 
reconsecrated  the  dilapidated  and  desecrated  sanctuary. 
He  made  a  new  shewbread-table,  incense-altar,  and 
candlestick  of  gold  in  place  of  those  which  Antiochus 
had  carried  off,  and  new  vessels  of  gold,  and  a  new 
veil  before  the  Hohest  Place.  All  this  was  completed 
on  Kisleu  25,  B.C.  165,  about  the  time  of  the  winter 
solstice,  *'  on  the  same  day  of  the  year  on  which,  three 
years  before,  it  had  been  profaned  by  Antiochus,  and 
just  three  years  and  a  half — *  a  time,  two  times,  and 
half  a  time ' — after  the  city  and  Temple  had  been 
desolated  by  Apollonius."  ^  They  began  the  day  by 
renewing  the  sacrifices,  kindling  the  altar  and  the 
candlestick  by  pure  fire  struck  by  flints.  The  whole 
law  of  the  Temple  service  continued  thenceforward 
without  interruption  till  the  destruction  of  the  Temple 
by  the  Romans.  It  was  a  feast  in  commemoration  of 
this  dedication — called  the  Encaenia  and  ''  the  Lights  " 
— which  Christ  honoured  by  His  presence  at  Jerusalem.^ 

The  neighbouring  nations,  when  they  heard  of  this 
revolt  of  the  Jews,  and  its  splendid  success,  proposed 
to  join  with  Antiochus  for  their  extermination.  But 
meanwhile  the  king,  having  been  shamefully  repulsed 
in  his  sacrilegious  attack  on  the  Temple  of  Artemis  at 
Elymais,  retired  in  deep  chagrin  to  Ecbatana,  in  Media. 
It  was  there  that  he  heard  of  the  Jewish  successes  and 


'  Prideaux,  Connection,  ii.  212.     Comp.  Rev.  xii.  14,  xi.  2,  3. 
2  John  X.  22, 


VISION  OF  THE  FOUR   WILD  BEASTS  247 

set  out  to  chastise  the  rebels.  On  his  way  he  heard 
of  the  recovery  of  Jerusalem,  the  destruction  of  his 
heathen  altars,  and  the  purification  of  the  Temple. 
The  news  flung  him  into  one  of  those  paroxysms  of 
fury  to  which  he  was  liable,  and,  breathing  out  threaten- 
ings  and  slaughter,  he  declared  that  he  would  turn 
Jerusalem  into  one  vast  cemetery  for  the  whole  Jewish 
race.  Suddenly  smitten  with  a  violent  internal  malady, 
he  would  not  stay  his  course,  but  still  urged  his 
charioteer  to  the  utmost  speed.^  In  consequence  of 
this  the  chariot  was  overturned,  and  he  was  flung 
violently  to  the  ground,  receiving  severe  injuries.  He 
was  placed  in  a  litter,  but,  unable  to  bear  the  agonies 
caused  by  its  motion,  he  stopped  at  Tabae,  in  the 
mountains  of  Paraetacene,  on  the  borders  of  Persia  and 
Babylonia,  where  he  died,  B.C.  164,  in  very  evil  case, 
half  mad  with  the  furies  of  a  remorseful  conscience.^ 
The  Jewish  historians  say  that,  before  his  death,  he 
repented,  acknowledged  the  crimes  he  had  committed 
against  the  Jews,  and  vowed  that  he  would  repair  them 
if  he  survived.  The  stories  of  his  death  resemble 
those  of  the  deaths  of  Herod,  of  Galerius,  of  PhiHp  II., 
and  of  other  bitter  persecutors  of  the  saints  of  God. 
Judas  the  Maccabee,  who  had  overthrown  his  power  in 
Palestine,  died  at  Eleasa  in  B.C.  161,  after  a  series  of 
brilliant  victories. 

Such  were  the  fortunes  of  the  king  whom  the  writer 
shadows  forth  under  the  emblem  of  the  little  horn  with 


^  On  the  death    of  Antiochus    see  I   Mace.    vi.    8 ;    2    Mace.    ix. ; 
Polybius,  xxxi.  1 1 ;  Jos.,  Antt.,  XII.  ix.  i,  2. 

2  Polybius,  De  Virt.  et  Vtt.,  Exc.  Vales,  p.  144;  Q.  Curtius,  v.  13; 
Strabo,  xi.  522;  Appian,  Syriaca,  xlvi.  80;  I  Mace.  vi. ;  2  Mace.  ix. ; 
Jos.,  Anft.,  XII.  ix.  I  ;  Prideaux,  ii.  217  ;  Jahn,  Hebr.  Commonwealth 
§  xcvi, 


2^8  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


human  eyes  and  a  mouth  which  spake  blasphemies, 
whose  power  was  to  be  made  transitory,  and  to  be 
annihilated  and  destroyed  unto  the  end.^  And  when 
this  wild  beast  was  slain,  and  its  body  given  to  the 
burning  fire,  the  rest  of  the  beasts  were  indeed  to  be 
deprived  of  their  splendid  dominions,  but  a  respite  of 
life  is  given  them,  and  they  are  suffered  to  endure  for 
a  time  and  a  period.^ 

But  the  eternal  life,  and  the  imperishable  dominion, 
which  were  denied  to  them,  are  given  to  another  in  the 
epiphany  of  the  Ancient  of  Days.  The  vision  of  the 
seer  is  one  of  a  great  scene  of  judgment.  Thrones  are 
set  for  the  heavenly  assessors,  and  the  Almight}^  ap- 
pears in  snow-white  raiment,  and  on  His  chariot-throne 
of  burning  flame  which  flashes  round  Him  hke  a  vast 
photosphere.^  The  books  of  everlasting  record  are 
opened  before  the  glittering  faces  of  the  myriads  of 
saints  who  accompany  Him,  and  the  fiery  doom  is 
passed  on  the  monstrous  world-powers  who  would  fain 
usurp  His  authority.'* 

But  who  is  the  ''  one  even  as  a  son  of  man/'  who 
'^  comes  with  the  clouds  of  heaven,"  and  who  is  brought 
before  the  Ancient  of  Days,"'^  to  whom  is  given  the 
imperishable    dominion  ?      That    he    is    not    an    angel 


'  Dan.  vii.  26. 

2  Dan,  vii.  12,  This  is  only  explicable  at  all — and  then  not  clearly 
— on  the  supposition  that  the  fourth  beast  represents  Alexander  and 
the  Diadochi.     See  even  Pusey,  p.  78. 

^  Ezek.  i,  26  ;  Psalm  1.  3.  Comp.  the  adaptation  of  this  vision  in 
Enoch  xlvi.  1-3. 

*  Isa.  1,  II,  Ix.  10-12,  Ixvi.  24,  Joel  iii.  I,  2.  See  Rev.  i.  13.  In 
the  Gospels  it  is  not  "  a  son  of  man,"  but  generally  6  utos  tov  dvdpdjirov. 
Comp.  Matt.  xvi.  13,  xxiv.  30;  John  xii.  34;  Acts  vii.  56;  Justin, 
Dial.  c.  Tryph.,  31. 

*  Comp.  Mark  xiv.  62  ;  Rev.  i.  7  ;  Hom.,  //.,  v.  867,  oixov  vecpiecrcnv. 


VISION  OF  THE  FOUR   WILD  BEASTS  249 


appears  from  the  fact  that  he  seems  to  be  separate 
from  all  the  ten  thousand  times  ten  thousand  who 
stand  around  the  cherubic  chariot.  He  is  not  a  man, 
but  something  more.  In  this  respect  he  resembles  the 
angels  described  in  Dan.  viii.  15,  x.  16-18.  He  has 
''  the  appearance  of  a  man,"  and  is  ''  like  the  similitude 
of  the  sons  of  men."  ^ 

We  should  naturally  answer,  in  accordance  with  the 
multitude  of  ancient  and  modern  commentators  both 
Jewish  and  Christian,  that  the  Messiah  is  intended  f  and, 
indeed,  our  Lord  alludes  to  the  prophecy  in  Matt.  xxvi. 
64.  That  the  vision  is  meant  to  indicate  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Messianic  theocracy  cannot  be  doubted. 
But  if  we  follow  the  interpretation  given  by  the  angel 
himself  in  answer  to  Daniel's  entreaty,  the  personality 
of  the  Messiah  seems  to  be  at  least  somewhat  subordi- 
nate or  indistinct.  For  the  interpretation,  without  men- 
tioning any  person,  seems  to  point  only  to  the  saints 
of  Israel  who  are  to  inherit  and  maintain  that  Divine 
kingdom  which  has  been  already  thrice  asserted  and 
prophesied.  It  is  the  "  holy  ones  "  {Qaddishui)^  '*  the 
holy  ones  of  the  Most  High  "  {Qaddishi  Elionhi)^  upon 
whom  the  never-ending  sovereignty  is  conferred ;  ^  and 
who  these  are  cannot  be  misunderstood,  for  they  are 
the  very  same  as  those  against  whom  the  little  horn 
has  been  engaged  in  war.'^     The  Messianic  kingdom  is 

•  Comp,  Ezek.  i.  26. 

^  It  is  so  understood  by  the  Book  of  Enoch  ;  the  Talmud  {Sanhedrin, 
f.  98,  i) ;  the  early  father  Justin  Martyr,  Dial.  c.  Tiyph.,  31,  etc.  Some 
of  the  Jewish  commentators  {e.g.,  Abn  Ezra)  understood  it  of  the 
people  of  God,  and  so  Hofmann,  Hitzig,  Meinhold,  etc.  See  Behrmann, 
Dan.,  p.  48. 

^  Dan.  iv.  3,  34,  vi.  26,  See  Schiirer,  ii.  247;  Wellhausen,  Die 
P harts,  u.  Sadd.,  24  ff. 

*  Dan.  vii.  16,  22,  23,  27. 


250  THE  BOOK   OF  DANIEL 


here  predominantly  represented  as  the  spiritual  supre- 
macy of  the  chosen  people.  Neither  here,  nor  in  ii.  44, 
nor  in  xii.  3,  does  the  writer  separately  indicate  any 
Davidic  king,  or  priest  upon  his  throne,  as  had  been 
already  done  by  so  many  previous  prophets.-^  This 
vision  does  not  seem  to  have  brought  into  prominence 
the  rule  of  any  Divinely  Incarnate  Christ  over  the  king- 
dom of  the  Highest.  In  this  respect  the  interpretation 
of  the  "one  even  as  a  son  of  man"  comes  upon  us  as 
a  surprise,  and  seems  to  indicate  that  the  true  interpre- 
tation of  that  element  of  the  vision  is  that  the  kingdom 
of  the  saints  is  there  personified  ;  so  that  as  wild  beasts 
were  appropriate  emblems  of  the  world-powers,  the 
reasonableness  and  sanctity  of  the  saintly  theocracy 
are  indicated  by  a  human  form,  which  has  its  origin  in 
the  clouds  of  heaven,  not  in  the  miry  and  troubled  sea. 
This  is  the  view  of  the  Christian  father  Ephraem  Syrus, 
as  well  as  of  the  Jewish  exegete  Abn  Ezra ;  and  it  is 
supported  by  the  fact  that  in  other  apocryphal  books  of 
the  later  epoch,  as  in  the  Assumption  of  Moses  and  the 
Book  of  Jubilees,  the  Messianic  hope  is  concentrated  in 
the  conception  that  the  holy  nation  is  to  have  the 
dominance  over  the  Gentiles.  At  any  rate,  it  seems 
that,  if  truth  is  to  guide  us  rather  than  theological 
prepossession,  we  must  take  the  significance  of  the 
writer,  not  from  the  emblems  of  the  vision,  but  from 
the  divinely  imparted  interpretation  of  it ;  and  there 
the  figure  of  "  one  as  a  son  of  man "  is  persistently 
(vv.  18,  22,  27)  explained  to  stand,  not  for  the  Christ 
Himself,  but  for  "  the  holy  ones  of  the  Most  High,"  ^ 

'  Zech.  ix.  9. 

^  See  Schiirer,  ii.  138-187,  "  The  Messianic  Hope":  he  refers  to  Ecclus, 
xxxii.  18,  19,  xxxiii.  l-ll,  xl.  13,  1.  24;  Judith  xvi,  12;  2  Mace.  ii.  18; 
Baruch  ii.  27-35;  Tobit  xiii.   11-18;   Wisdom  iii.  8,  v.   I,  etc.     The 


VISION  OF   THE  FOUR   WILD  BEASTS  251 


whose  dominion  Christ's  coming  should  inaugurate  and 
secure. 

The  chapter  closes  with  the  words  :  ''  Here  is  the  end 
of  the  matter.  As  for  me,  Daniel,  my  thoughts  much 
troubled  me,  and  my  brightness  was  changed  in  me  : 
but  I  kept  the  matter  in  my  heart." 


Messianic  King  appears  more  distinctly  in  Orac.  SibylL,  iii.;  in  parts 
of  the  Book  of  Enoch  (of  which,  however,  xlv.-lvii.  are  of  unknown 
date) ;  and  the  Psalms  of  Solomon.  In  Philo  we  seem  to  have 
traces  of  the  King  as  well  as  of  the  kingdom.  See  Drummond,  The 
Jewish  Messiah,  pp.  196  ff.;  Stanton,  The  Jewish  and  Christian  Messiah, 
pp.  109-118. 


CHAPTER   II 

THE  RAM  AND   THE  HE-GOAT 

THIS  vision  is  dated  as  having  occurred  in  the 
third  year  of  Belshazzar ;  but  it  is  not  easy  to  see 
the  significance  of  the  date,  since  it  is  almost  exclusively 
occupied  with  the  establishment  of  the  Greek  Empire, 
its  dissolution  into  the  kingdoms  of  the  Diadochi,  and 
the  godless  despotism  of  King  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 

The  seer  imagines  himself  to  be  in  the  palace  of 
Shushan:  "As  I  beheld  I  was  in  the  castle  of  Shushan."^ 
It  has  been  supposed  by  some  that  Daniel  was  really 
there  upon  some  business  connected  with  the  kingdom 
of  Babylon.  But  this  view  creates  a  needless  difficulty. 
Shushan,  which  the  Greeks  called  Susa,  and  the  Persians 
Shush  (now  Shushter),  '^  the  city  of  the  lily,"  was  "  the 
palace  "  or  fortress  {birah  ^)  of  the  Achaemenid  kings 
of  Persia,  and  it  is  most  unlikely  that  a  chief  officer 
of  the  kingdom  of  Babylon  should  have  been  there  in 
the  third  year  of  the  imaginary  King  Belshazzar,  just 
when  Cyrus  w^as  on  the  eve  of  capturing  Babylon  with- 
out a  blow.  If  Belshazzar  is  some  dim  reflection  of 
the  son  of  Nabunaid  (though  he  never  reigned),  Shushan 

'  Ezra  vi.  2  ;  Neh.  i.  I  ;  Herod.,  v.  49  ;  Polyb.,  v.  48.  A  supposed 
tomb  of  Daniel  has  long  been  revered  at  Shushan. 

^  Pers.,  baru  ;  Skr.,  bura;  Assyr.,  birlu]  Gk.,  ^dpis.  Comp.  ^sch,, 
Pers,,  554;  Herod.,  ii.  96. 

252 


THE  RAM  AND   THE  HE-GOAT 


-53 


was  not  then  subject  to  the  King  of  Babylonia,  But 
the  ideal  presence  of  the  prophet  there,  in  vision,  is 
analogous  to  the  presence  of  the  exile  Ezekiel  in  Jeru- 
salem (Ezek.  xl.  i) ;  and  these  transferences  of  the 
prophets  to  the  scenes  of  their  operation  were  some- 
times even  regarded  as  bodily,  as  in  the  legend  of 
Habakkuk  taken  to  the  lions'  den  to  support  Daniel. 

Shushan  is  described  as  being  in  the  province  of 
Elam  or  Elymais,  which  may  be  here  used  as  a  general 
designation  of  the  district  in  which  Susiana  was  in- 
cluded. The  prophet  imagines  himself  as  standing  by 
the  river-basin  (oobdl'^)  of  the  Ulai,  which  shows  that 
we  must  take  the  words  "  in  the  castle  of  Shushan"  in 
an  ideal  sense ;  for,  as  Ewald  says,  ^*  it  is  only  in  a 
dream  that  images  and  places  are  changed  so  rapidly." 
The  Ulai  is  the  river  called  by  the  Greeks  the  Euleeus, 
now  the  Karun.^ 

Shushan  is  said  by  Pliny  and  Arrian  to  have  been 
on  the  river  Eulseus,  and  by  Herodotus  to  have  been 
on  the  banks  of 

"Choaspes,  amber  stream, 
The  drink  of  none  but  kings." 

It  seems  now  to  have  been  proved  that  the  Ulai  was 
merely  a  branch  of  the  Choaspes  or  Kerkhah.^ 

'  Theodot.,  oi)/3d\;  Ewald,  Stromgebiet — a  place  where  several 
rivers  meet.  The  Jews  prayed  on  river-banks  (Acts  xvi.  13),  and 
Ezekiel  had  seen  his  vision  on  the  Chebar  (Ezek.  i.  I,  iii.  15,  etc.); 
but  this  Ulai  is  here  mentioned  because  the  palace  stood  on  its  bank. 
Both  the  LXX.  and  Theodotion  omit  the  word  Ulai. 

"^  "Susianam  ab  Elymaide  disterminat  amnis  Eulaeus"  (Plin.,  H.  N., 
vi.  27). 

'  See  Loftus,  Chaldcea,  p.  346,  who  visited  Shush  in  1854; 
Herzog,  R.  £".,  s.v.  "Susa."  A  tile  was  found  by  Layard  at  Kuyunjik 
representing  a  large  city  between  two  rivers.  It  probably  represents 
Susa.  Loftus  says  that  the  city  stood  between  the  Choaspes  and 
the  Kopratas  (now  the  Dizful). 


254  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


Lifting  up  his  eyes,  Daniel  sees  a  ram  standing  east- 
ward of  the  river-basin.  It  has  two  lofty  horns,  the 
loftier  of  the  two  being  the  later  in  origin.  It  butts 
westward,  northward,  and  southward,  and  does  great 
things.^  But  in  the  midst  of  its  successes  a  he-goat, 
with  a  conspicuous  horn  between  its  eyes,^  comes  from 
the  West  so  swiftly  over  the  face  of  all  the  earth 
that  it  scarcely  seems  even  to  touch  the  ground,^  and 
runs  upon  the  ram  in  the  fury  of  his  strength,'*  con- 
quering and  trampling  upon  him,  and  smashing  in 
pieces  his  two  horns.  But  his  impetuosity  was  short- 
lived, for  the  great  horn  was  speedily  broken,  and 
four  others  ^  rose  in  its  place  towards  the  four  winds 
of  heaven.  Out  of  these  four  horns  shot  up  a  puny 
horn,^  which  grew  exceedingly  great  towards  the  South, 
and  towards  the  East,  and  towards  "  the  Glory  " — i.e.j 
towards  the  Holy  Land.^  It  became  great  even  to 
the  host  of  heaven,  and  cast  down  some  of  the  host 
and  of  the  stars  to  the  ground,  and  trampled  on  them.^ 


*  The  Latin  word  for  "  to  butt  "  is  arietare,  from  aries,  "  a  ram."  It 
butts  in  three  directions  (comp.  Dan.  vii.  5).  Its  conquests  in  the  East 
were  apart  from  the  writer's  purpose.  Croesus  called  the  Persians 
v^pLCTTai,  and  ^schylus  vTrepKOfXTroL  dyav,  Pers.,  795  (Stuart).  For 
horns  as  the  symbol  of  strength  see  Amos  vi.  13  ;  Psalm  Ixxv.  5. 

'^  Unicorns  are  often  represented  on  Assyrio-Babylonian  sculptures. 
^  I  Mace.  i.  1-3  ;    Isa.  xli.  2  ;    Hosea  xiii.  7,  8;    Hab.  i.  6. 

*  Fury  (chemah),  "  heat,"  "  violence  " — also  of  deadly  venom  (Deut. 
xxxii.  24). 

*  A.V.,  "four  notable  herns  ";  but  the  word  chazoth  means  literally 
"a  sight  of  four" — i.e.,  "four  other  horns"  (comp.  ver.  8).  Gratz 
reads  acheroth ;  LXX.,  eVepa  riacapa  (comp.  xi.  4). 

«  Lit.  "  out  of  littleness." 

'  Hatstsebi.    Comp.  xi.  45  ;  Ezek.  xx.  6  ;  Jer.  iii.   19     Zech.  vii.  14 
Psalm  cvi.  24.     The  Rabbis  make  the  word  mean  "the  gazelle"  for 
fanciful  reasons  (Taanith,  6g,a). 

*  The  physical  image  implies  the  war  against  the  spiritual  host  of 


THE  RAM  AND   THE  HE-GOAT  255 

He  even  behaved  proudly  against  the  prince  of  the  host, 
took  away  from  him  ^  "  the  daily  "  (sacrifice),  polluted 
the  dismantled  sanctuary  with  sacrilegious  arms,^  and 
cast  the  truth  to  the  ground  and  prospered.  Then 
"one  holy  one  called  to  another  and  asked,  For 
how  long  is  the  vision  of  the  daily  [sacrifice],  and  the 
horrible  sacrilege,  that  thus  both  the  sanctuary  and 
host  are  surrendered  to  be  trampled  underfoot  ?  "  ^ 
And  the  answer  is,  ''  Until  two  thousand  three  hundred 
^erebh-boqer,  '  evening-morning ' ;  then  will  the  sanctuary 
be  justified." 

Daniel  sought  to  understand  the  vision,  and  imme- 
diately there  stood  before  him  one  in  the  semblance 
of  a  man,  and  he  hears  the  distant  voice  of  some  one  ^ 
standing  between  the  Ulai — i.e.,  between  its  two  banks,^ 
or  perhaps  between  its  two  branches,  the  Eulaeus  and 
the    Choaspes — who  called  aloud  to  '*  Gabriel."      The 


heaven,  the  holy  people  with  their  leaders.  See  I  Mace.  i.  24-30  ; 
2  Mace.  ix.  10,  The  Tsebaoth  mean  primarily  the  stars  and  angels, 
but  next  the  Israelites  (Exod.  vii.  4). 

'  So  in  the  Hebrew  margin  (Q^ri),  followed  by  Theodoret  and 
Ewald ;  but  in  the  text  {Kethibh)  it  is,  "  by  him  the  daily  was 
abolished  " ;  and  with  this  reading  the  Peshito  and  Vulgate  agree. 
Hattamid,  "the  daily"  sacrifice;  LXX,,  ez/SeXexiC/Wos ;  Numb,  xxviii.  3; 
I  Mace.  i.  39,  45,  iii.  45. 

■^  The  Hebrew  is  here  corrupt.  The  R.V,  renders  it,  "  And  the 
host  was  given  over  to  it,  together  with  the  continual  burnt  offering 
through  transgression ;  and  it  cast  down  truth  to  the  ground, >and  it 
did  its  pleasure  and  prospered." 

'  Dan.  viii.  13.  I  follow  Ewald  in  this  difficult  verse,  and  with 
him  Von  Lengerke  and  Hitzig  substantially  agree ;  but  the  text  is 
again  corrupt,  as  appears  also  in  the  LXX.  It  would  be  useless  here 
to  enter  into  minute  philological  criticism.  "How  long?"(comp. 
Isa.  vi.  ii). 

^  LXX.,  0eXyGiw/'t ;   nescio  quis  (Vulg.,  viri'), 

*  Comp.  for  the  expression  xii.  6. 


256  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

archangel  Gabriel  is  here  first  mentioned  in  Scripture.^ 
**  Gabriel/'  cried  the  voice,  **  explain  to  him  what  he 
has  seen."  vSo  Gabriel  came  and  stood  beside  him ; 
but  he  was  terrified,  and  fell  on  his  face.  "  Observe, 
thou  son  of  man,"  ^  said  the  angel  to  him  ;  ''for  unto 
the  time  of  the  end  is  the  vision."  But  since  Daniel 
still  lay  prostrate  on  his  face,  and  sank  into  a  swoon, 
the  angel  touched  him,  and  raised  him  up,  and  said 
that  the  great  wrath  was  only  for  a  fixed  time,  and  he 
would  tell  him  what  would  happen  at  the  end  of  it. 

The  two-horned  ram,  he  said,  the  Baal-keranaim, 
or  "  lord  of  two  horns,"  represents  the  King  of  Media 
and  Persia  ;  the  shaggy  goat  is  the  Empire  of  Greece  ; 
and  the  great  horn  is  its  first  king — Alexander  the 
Great.' 

The  four  horns  rising  out  of  the  broken  great  horn 
are  four  inferior  kingdoms.  In  one  of  these,  sacrilege 
would  culminate  in  the  person  of  a  king  of  bold  face,'* 
and  skilled  in  cunning,  who  would  become  powerful, 
though  not  by"  his  own  strength.*^     He  would  prosper 

1  We  find  no  names  in  Gen.  xxxii.  30;  Judg,  xiii.  18.  For  the 
presence  of  angels  at  the  vision  comp.  Zech.  i.  9,  13,  etc.  Gabriel 
means  "man  of  God."  In  Tobit  iii.  17  Raphael  is  mentioned;  in 
2  Esdras  v.  20,  Uriel.  This  is  the  first  mention  of  any  angel's  name, 
Michael  is  the  highest  archangel  (Weber,  System.,  162  ft'.),  and  in 
Jewish  angelology  Gabriel  is  identified  with  the  Holy  Spirit  {Ruach 
Haqqodesh).     As  such  he  appears  in  the  Quran,  ii.  91  (Behrmann). 

-  Ben-Adam  (Ezek.  ii.  i). 

3  Comp.  Isa.  xiv.  9  :  "  All  the  great  goats  of  the  earth."  A  ram 
is  a  natural  symbol  for  a  chieftain. — Hom.,  //.,  xiii.  491-493;  Cic, 
De  Div.,  i.  22 ;  Plut.,  Sulla,  c.  27 ;  Jer.  1.  8 ;  Ezek.  xxxiv.  17 ;  Zech.  x.  3, 
etc.     See  Vaux,  Persia,  p.  72. 

*  "  Strength  of  face  "  (LXX.,  dvaLdr]^  Tr/joaciTry  ;  Deut.  xxviii.  50,  etc.). 
"  Understanding  dark  sentences"  (Judg,  xiv.  12  ;  Ezek.  xvii.  2  :  comp. 
V.   12). 

^  The  meaning  is  uncertain.  It  may  mean  (i)  that  he  is  only 
strong  by  God's  permission ;  or  (2)  only  by  cunning,  not  by  strength. 


THE  RAM  AND    THE  HE-GOAT  257 

and  destroy  mighty  men  and  the  people  of  the  holy 
ones/  and  deceit  would  succeed  by  his  double-dealing. 
He  would  contend  against  the  Prince  of  princes,^  and 
yet  without  a  hand  would  he  be  broken  in  pieces. 

Such  is  the  vision  and  its  interpretation ;  and 
though  there  is  here  and  there  a  difficulty  in  the 
details  and  translation,  and  though  there  is  a  neces- 
sary crudeness  in  the  emblematic  imagery,  the  general 
significance  of  the  whole  is  perfectly  clear. 

The  scene  of  the  vision  is  ideally  placed  in  Shushan, 
because  the  Jews  regarded  it  as  the  royal  capital  of 
the  Persian  dominion,  and  the  dream  begins  with  the 
overthrow  of  the  Medo-Persian  Empire.^  The  ram 
is  a  natural  symbol  of  power  and  strength,  as  in 
Isa.  Ix.  7.  The  two  horns  represent  the  two  divisions 
of  the  empire,  of  which  the  later — the  Persian — is 
the  loftier  and  the  stronger.  It  is  regarded  as  being 
already  the  lord  of  the  East,  but  it  extends  its  con- 
quests by  butting  westward  over  the  Tigris  into  Europe, 
and  southwards  to  Egypt  and  Africa,  and  northwards 
towards  Scythia,  with  magnificent  success. 

The  he-goat  is  Greece.*  Its  one  great  horn  re- 
presents "the  great  Emathian  conqueror."^     So  swift 


'  Comp.  2  Mace.  iv.  9-15:  "The  priests  had  no  courage  to  serve 
any  more  at  the  altar,  but  despising  the  Temple,  and  neglecting  the 
sacrifices,  hastened  to  be  partakers  of  the  unlawful  allowance  in  the 
place  of  exercise  .  .  .  not  setting  by  the  honours  of  their  fathers,  but 
liking  the  glory  of  the  Grecians  best  of  all." 

-  Not  merely  the  angelic  prince  of  the  host  (Josh.  v.  14),  but  God — 
"  Lord  of  lords." 

^  Comp.  Esther  i.  2.  Though  the  vision  took  place  under  Babylon, 
the  seer  is  strangely  unconcerned  with  the  present,  or  with  the  fate 
of  the  Babylonian  Empire. 

■•  It  is  said  to  be  the  national  emblem  of  Macedonia. 

^  He  is  called  "the  King  of  Javan  " — />.,  of  the  lonians. 

17 


258  THE  BOOK   OF  DANIEL 

was  the  career  of  Alexander's  conquests,  that  the 
goat  seems  to  speed  along  without  so  much  as  touch- 
ing the  ground.-^  With  irresistible  fury,  in  the  great 
battles  of  the  Granicus  (b.c.  334),  Issus  (b.c.  333),  and 
Arbela  (b.c.  331),  he  stamps  to  pieces  the  power  of 
Persia  and  of  its  king,  Darius  Codomannus.^  In  this 
short  space  of  time  Alexander  conquers  Syria,  Phoenicia, 
Cyprus,  Tyre,  Gaza,  Egypt,  Babylonia,  Persia,  Media, 
Hyrcania,  Aria,  and  Arachosia.  In  B.C.  330  Darius 
was  murdered  by  Bessus,  and  Alexander  became  lord 
of  his  kingdom.  In  b.c.  329  the  Greek  King  con- 
quered Bactria,  crossed  the  Oxus  and  Jaxartes,  and 
defeated  the  Scythians.  In  b.c.  328  he  conquered 
Sogdiana.  In  b.c  327  and  326  he  crossed  the  Indus, 
Hydaspes,  and  Akesines,  subdued  Northern  and 
Western  India,  and — compelled  by  the  discontent  of  his 
troops  to  pause  in  his  career  of  victory — sailed  down 
the  Hydaspes  and  Indus  to  the  Ocean.  He  then 
returned  by  land  through  Gedrosia,  Karmania,  Persia, 
and  Susiana  to  Babylon. 

There  the  great  horn  is  suddenly  broken  without 
hand.^  Alexander  in  b.c.  323,  after  a  reign  of  twelve 
years  and  eight  months,  died  as  a  fool  dieth,  of  a  fever 
brought  on  by  fatigue,  exposure,  drunkenness,  and 
debauchery.     He  was  only  thirty-two  years  old. 

The  dismemberment  of  his  empire  immediately 
followed.      In    b.c.    322    its  vast   extent   was    divided 


'  Isa.  V.  26-29,     Comp.  i  Mace.  i.  3. 

'^  The  fury  of  the  he-goat  represents  the  vengeance  cherished  by 
the  Greeks  against  Persia  since  the  old  days  of  Marathon,  Ther- 
mopylae, Salamis,  Platsea,  and  Mycale.  Persia  had  invaded  Greece 
under  Mardonius  (b.c.  492),  under  Datis  and  Artaphernes  (e.g.  490), 
and  under  Xerxes  (b.c.  480). 

^  I  Mace.  vi.  1-16;  2  Mace.  ix.  9;  Job  vii.  6;  Prov.  xxvi.  20. 


THE  RAM  AND   THE  HE-GOAT  ±S9 

among  his  principal  generals.  Twenty-two  years  of 
war  ensued ;  and  in  b,c.  301,  after  the  defeat  of  Anti- 
gonus  and  his  son  Demetrius  at  the  Battle  of  Ipsus, 
four  horns  are  visible  in  the  place  of  one.  The  battle 
was  won  by  the  confederacy  of  Cassander,  Lysimachus, 
Ptolemy,  and  Seleucus,  and  they  founded  four  king- 
doms. Cassander  ruled  in  Greece  and  Macedonia ; 
Lysimachus  in  Asia  Minor ;  Ptolemy  in  Egypt,  Coele- 
Syria,  and  Palestine ;  Seleucus  in  Upper  Asia. 

With  one  only  of  the  four  kingdoms,  and  with  one 
only  of  its  kings,  is  the  vision  further  concerned — with 
the  kingdom  of  the  Seleucidae,  and  with  the  eighth  king 
of  the  dynasty,  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  In  this  chapter, 
however,  a  brief  sketch  only  of  him  is  furnished. 
Many  details  of  the  minutest  kind  are  subsequently 
added. 

He  is  called  *'  a  puny  horn,"  because,  in  his  youth, 
no  one  could  have  anticipated  his  future  greatness.  He 
was  only  a  younger  son  of  Antiochus  III.  (the  Great). 
When  Antiochus  III.  was  defeated  in  the  Battle  of 
Magnesia  under  Mount  Sipylus  (b.c.  190),  his  loss  was 
terrible.  Fifty  thousand  foot  and  four  thousand  horse 
were  slain  on  the  battlefield,  and  fourteen  hundred 
were  taken  prisoners.  He  was  forced  to  make  peace 
with  the  Romans,  and  to  give  them  hostages,  one  of 
whom  was  Antiochus  the  Younger,  brother  of  Seleucus, 
who  was  heir  to  the  throne.  Antiochus  for  thirteen 
years  languished  miserably  as  a  hostage  at  Rome.  His 
father,  Antiochus  the  Great,  was  either  slain  in  b.c.  187 
by  the  people  of  Elymais,  after  his  sacrilegious  plunder- 
ing of  the  Temple  of  Jupiter-Belus ;  ^  or  murdered   by 


'  So  Diodorus  Siculus  (Exc.    Vales.,    p.    293);   Justin,    xxxii.    2; 
Jer.  m  Dan.,  xi. ;  Strabo,  xvi.  744. 


26o  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


some  of  his  own  attendants  v/hom  he  had  beaten  during 
a  fit  of  drunkenness.^  Seleucus  Philopator  succeeded 
him,  and  after  having  reigned  for  thirteen  years,  wished 
to  see  his  brother  Anticchus  again.  He  therefore  sent 
his  son  Demetrius  in  exchange  for  him,  perhaps  desiring 
that  the  boy,  who  was  then  twelve  years  old,  should 
enjoy  the  advantage  of  a  Roman  education,  or  thinking 
that  Antiochus  would  be  of  more  use  to  him  in  his 
designs  against  Ptolemy  Philometor,  the  child-king  of 
Egypt.  When  Demetrius  was  on  his  way  to  Rome, 
and  Antiochus  had  not  yet  reached  Antioch,  Heliodorus 
the  treasurer  seized  the  opportunity  to  poison  Seleucus 
and  usurp  the  crown. 

The  chances,  therefore,  of  Antiochus  seemed  very 
forlorn.  But  he  was  a  man  of  ability,  though  with  a 
taint  of  folly  and  madness  in  his  veins.  B}^  allying  him- 
self with  Eumenes,  King  of  Pergamum,  as  we  shall  see 
hereafter,  he  suppressed  Heliodorus,  secured  the  king- 
dom, and  **  becoming  very  great,"  though  only  by  fraud, 
cruelty,  and  stratagem,  assumed  the  title  of  Epiphanes 
^'  the  Illustrious."  He  extended  his  power  ''  towards 
the  South  "  by  intriguing  and  warring  against  Egypt 
and  his  young  nephew,  Ptolemy  Philometor ;  ^  and 
'*  towards  the  Sunrising  "  by  his  successes  in  the  direc- 
tion of  Media  and  Persia;^  and  towards  ''the  Glory" 
or  "  Ornament "  (Jiatstsebi) — i.e.,  the  Holy  Land.*  In- 
flated with  insolence,  he  now  set  himself  against  the 
stars,  the  host  of  heaven — i.e.,  against  the  chosen 
people  of  God  and  their  leaders.     He  cast  down  and 


'  Aurel.  Vict.,  De  Virr.  Ilhtstr.y  c.  liv. 
^  He  conquered  Egypt  B.C.  170  (i  Mace.  i.  17-20). 
^  See  I  Mace,  iii,  29-37. 

■•  Comp.  Ezek.  xx.  6,  "  which  is  the  glory  of  all  lands  " ;  Psalm  1.  2 
Lam,  ii.  15. 


THE  RAM  AND    THE  HE-GOAT  261 


trampled  on  them,^  and  defied  the  Prince  of  the  host ; 
for  he 

"  Not  e'en  against  the  Holy  One  of  heaven 
Refrained  his  tongue  blasphemous." 

His  chief  enormity  was  the  abolition  of  "  the  daily  " 
(tamid) — i.e.,  the  sacrifice  daily  offered  in  the  Temple  ; 
and  the  desecration  of  the  sanctuary  itself  by  violence 
and  sacrilege,  which  will  be  more  fully  set  forth  in  the 
next  chapters.  He  also  seized  and  destroyed  the  sacred 
books  of  the  Jews.  As  he  forbade  the  reading  of  the 
Law — of  which  the  daily  lesson  was  called  the  Parashah 
— there  began  from  this  time  the  custom  of  selecting 
a  lesson  from  the  Prophets,  which  was  called  the 
Haphtarah.^ 

It  was  natural  to  make  one  of  the  holy  ones,  who 
are  supposed  to  witness  this  horrible  iniquity,^  inquire 
how  long  it  was  to  be  permitted.  The  enigmatic 
answer  is,  ''  Until  an  evening-morning  two  thousand 
three  hundred." 

In  the  further  explanation  given  to  Daniel  by  Gabriel 
a  few  more  touches  are  added. 

Antiochus  Epiphanes  is  described  as  a  king  ''bold 
of  visage,  and  skilled  in  enigmas."  His  boldness  is 
sufficiently  illustrated  by  his  many  campaigns  and 
battles,  and   his   braggart  insolence  has  been  already 

*  I  Mace.  i.  24-30.  Dr.  Pusey  endeavours,  without  even  the 
smallest  success,  to  show  that  many  things  said  of  Antiochus  in  this 
book  do  not  apply  to  him.  The  argument  is  based  on  the  fact  that 
the  characteristics  of  Antiochus — who  was  a  man  of  versatile  impulses 
— are  somewhat  differently  described  by  different  authors ;  but  here 
we  have  the  aspect  he  presented  to  a  few  who  regarded  him  as  the 
deadliest  of  tyrants  and  persecutors. 

*  See  Hamburger,  ii.  334  {s.v.  "Haftara"). 

*  Comp.  bp'^y]  fMeyaXr}  (i  Mace.  i.  64;  Isa.  x.  5,  25,  xxVi.  20;  Jer. 
1.    5     Rom.  ii.  5,  etc.). 


262  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


alluded  to  in  vii.  8.  His  skill  in  enigmas  is  illustrated 
by  his  dark  and  tortuous  diplomacy,  which  was  ex- 
hibited in  all  his  proceedings/  and  especially  in  the 
whole  of  his  dealings  with  Egypt,  in  which  country  he 
desired  to  usurp  the  throne  from  his  young  nephew 
Ptolemy  Philometor.  The  statement  that  **  he  will 
have  mighty  strength,  but  not  by  his  own  strength," 
may  either  mean  that  his  transient  prosperity  was 
due  only  to  the  permission  of  God,  or  that  his  successes 
were  won  rather  by  cunning  than  by  prowess.  After 
an  allusion  to  his  cruel  persecution  of  the  holy  people, 
Gabriel  adds  that  ''  without  a  hand  shall  he  be  broken 
in  pieces  " ;  in  other  words,  his  retribution  and  destruc- 
tion shall  be  due  to  no  human  intervention,  but  will 
come  from  God  Himself^ 

Daniel  is  bidden  to  hide  the  vision  for  many  days — 
a  sentence  which  is  due  to  the  literary  plan  of  the 
Book ;  and  he  is  assured  that  the  vision  concerning 
the  "  evening-morning  "  was  true.  He  adds  that  the 
vision  exhausted  and  almost  annihilated  him ;  but, 
afterwards,  he  arose  and  did  the  king's  business. 
He  was  silent  about  the  vision,  for  neither  he  nor  any 
one  else  understood  it.^  Of  course,  had  the  real  date 
of  the  chapter  been  in  the  reign  of  Belshazzar,  it  was 
wholly  impossible    that    either   the    seer    or  any   one 


'  Comp.  xi.  21. 

"^  Comp.  ii.  34,  xi.  45.  Antiochus  died  of  a  long  and  terrible  illness 
in  Persia.  Polybius  (xxxi.  1 1)  describes  his  sickness  by  the  word 
8ai/j.ov7]a-as.  Arrian  (Syrt'aca,  66)  says  tpdiviop  eTeXeirrjae.  In  I  Mace, 
vi.  8- 1 6  he  dies  confessing  his  sins  against  the  Jews,  but  there  is 
another  story  in  2  Mace.  ix.  4-28. 

^  Ver.  27,  "I  was  gone"  (or,  "came  to  an  end")  "whole  days." 
With  this  ^KO-raa-LS  comp.  ii.  i,  vii.  28  ;  Exod.  xxxiii.  20 ;  Isa.  vi.  5  ; 
Luke  ix.  32 ;  Acts  ix.  4,  etc.  Comp.  xii.  8 ;  Jer.  xxxii.  14,  and 
(contra)  Rev.  xxii.  10, 


THE  RAM  AND   THE  HE-GOAT  263 


else  should  have  been  able  to  attach  any  significance 
to  it.i 

Emphasis  is  evidently  attached  to  the  '*  two  thousand 
three  hundred  evening-morning"  during  which  the  deso- 
lation of  the  sanctuary  is  to  continue. 

What  does  the  phrase  "  evening-morning "  ('erebh- 
boqer)  mean  ? 

In  ver.  26  it  is  called  *'  the  vision  concerning  the 
evening  and  the  morning." 

Does  "  evening-morning  "  mean  a  whole  day,  like  the 
Greek  wxOijfiepov,  or  half  a  day  ?  The  expression  is 
doubly  perplexing.  If  the  writer  meant  ''days,"  why 
does  he  not  say  ''  days"  as  in  xii,  1 1,  12  ?  ^  And  why, 
in  any  case,  does  he  here  use  the  solecism  ^crebh-boqer 
(Abendmorgen)^  and  not,  as  in  ver.  26,  "evening  and 
morning  "  ?  Does  the  expression  mean  two  thousand 
three  hundred  days  ?  or  eleven  hundred  and  fifty  days  ? 

It  is  a  natural  supposition  that  the  time  is  meant  to 
correspond  with  the  three  years  and  a  half  (''  a  time, 
two  times,  and  half  a  time")  of  vii.  25.  But  here  again 
all  certainty  of  detail  is  precluded  by  our  ignorance 
as  to  the  exact  length  of  years  by  which  the  writer 
reckoned ;  and  how  he  treated  the  month  Ve-adar^  a 
month  of  thirty  days,  which  was  intercalated  once  in 
every  six  years. 

Supposing  that  he  allowed  an  intercalary  fifteen  days 
for   three  and  a  half  years,  and  took  the  Babylonian 

*  In  ver.  26  the  R. V.  renders  "  it  belongeth  to  many  days  to  come.'' 
2  Comp.  Gen.  i.  5  ;  2  Cor.  xi.  25.  The  word  tamtd  includes  both  the 
morning  and  evening  sacrifice  (Exod.  xxix.  41).  Pusey  says  (p.  220), 
"  The  shift  of  halving  the  days  is  one  of  those  monsters  which  have 
disgraced  scientific  expositions  *of  Hebrew.'"  Yet  this  is  the  view 
of  such  scholars  as  Ewald,  Hitzig,  Kuenen,  Cornill,  Behrmann.  The 
latter  quotes  a  parallel :  "vgl.  im  Hildebrandsliede  sumaro  ente  wintro 
sehstie  =:  30  Jahr." 


264  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

reckoning  of  twelve  months  of  thirty  days,  then  three 
and  a  half  years  gives  us  twelve  hundred  and  seventy- 
five  days,  or,  omitting  any  allowance  for  intercalation, 
twelve  hundred  and  sixty  days. 

If,  then,  "  two  thousand  three  hundred  evening- 
morning  "  means  two  thousand  three  hundred  half  dsiys, 
we  have  one  hundred  and.  ten  days  too  many  for  the 
three  and  a  half  years. 

And  if  the  phrase  means  two  thousand  three  hunr 
dred  full  days,  that  gives  us  (counting  thirty  intercalary 
days  for  Ve-adar)  too  little  for  seven  years  by  two 
hundred  and  fifty  days.  Some  see  in  this  a  mystic 
intimation  that  the  period  of  chastisement  shall  for  the 
elect's  sake  be  shortened.^  Some  commentators  reckon 
seven  years  roughly,  from  the  elevation  of  Menelaus  to 
the  high-priesthood  (Kisleu,  b.c.  i68  :  2  Mace.  v.  ii)  to 
the  victory  of  Judas  Maccabseus  over  Nicanor  at  Adasa, 
March,  b.c.  i6i  (i  Mace.  vii.  25-50;  2  Mace.  xv.  20-35). 

In  neither  case  do  the  calculations  agree  with  the 
twelve  hundred  and  ninety  or  the  thirteen  hundred 
and  thirty-five  days  of  xii.  12,  13. 

Entire  volumes  of  tedious  and  wholly  inconclusive 
comment  have  been  written  on  these  combinations,  but 
by  no  reasonable  supposition  can  we  arrive  at  close 
accuracy.  Strict  chronological  accuracy  was  difficult 
of  attainment  in  those  days,  and  was  never  a  matter 
about  which  the  Jews,  in  particular,  greatly  troubled 
themselves.  We  do  not  know  either  the  ierminus  a 
quo  from  which  or  the  terminus  ad  quem  to  which  the 
writer  reckoned.  All  that  can  be  said  is  that  it  is 
perfectly  impossible  for  us  to  identify  or  exactly  equi- 
parate  the  three  and  a  half  years  (vii.  25),  the  ''two 

•  Matt.  xxiv.  22. 


THE  RAM  AND   THE  HE-GOAT  265 


thousand  three  hundred  evening-morning"  (viii.  14), 
the  seventy-two  weeks  (ix.  26),  and  the  twelve  hun- 
dred and  ninety  days  (xii.  11).  Yet  all  those  dates 
have  this  point  of  resemblance  about  them,  that  they 
very  roughly  indicate  a  space  of  about  three  and  a 
half  years  (more  or  less)  as  the  time  during  which  the 
daily  sacrifice  should  cease,  and  the  Temple  be  polluted 
and  desolate.-^ 

Turning  now  to  the  dates,  we  know  that  Judas  the 
Maccabee  cleansed  ^  (''justified  "  or  vindicated,"  viii.  14) 
the  Temple  on  Kisleu  25  (December  25th,  b.c.  165). 
If  we  reckon  back  two  thousand  three  hundred  full 
days  from  this  date,  it  brings  us  to  b.c.  171,  in  which 
Menelaus,  who  bribed  Antiochus  to  appoint  him  high 
priest,  robbed  the  Temple  of  some  of  its  treasures,  and 
procured  the  murder  of  the  high  priest  Onias  III. 
In  this  year  Antiochus  sacrificed  a  great  sow  on  the 
altar  of  burnt  offerings,  and  sprinkled  its  broth  over 
the  sacred  building.  These  crimes  provoked  the  revolt 
of  the  Jews,  in  v/hich  they  killed  Lysimachus,  governor 
of  Syria,  and  brought  on  themselves  a  heavy  retribution.^ 

If  we  reckon  back  two  thousand  three  hundred  half- 
days,  eleven  hundred  and  fifty  whole  days,  we  must  go 
back  three  years  and  seventy  days,  but  we  cannot  tell 
what  exact  event  the  writer  had  in  mind  as  the  starting- 
point  of  his  calculations.  The  actual  time  which  elapsed 
fram  the  final  defilement  of  the  Temple  by  Apollonius, 


'  "These  five  passages  agree  in  making  the  final  distress  last 
during  three  years  and  a  fraction :  the  only  diff"erence  lies  in  the 
magnitude  of  the  fraction"  (Bevan,  p.  127). 

2  I  Mace.  iv.  41-56 ;  2  Mace.  x.  1-5. 

'  See  on  this  period  Diod.  Sic,  Fr.,  xxvi.  79 ;  Liv.,  xlii.  29  ;  Polyb., 
Legat.,  71;  Justin,  xxxiv.  2 ;  Jer.,  Comm.  in  Dan.,  xi.  22;  Jahn, 
Hehr.  Comj-nonwealth,  §  xciv. ;  Prideaux,  Connection,  ii.  146. 


266  THE  BOOK   OF  DANIEL 

the  general  of  Antiochus,  in  B.C.  i68,  till  its  repurification 
was  roughly  three  years.  Perhaps,  however — for  all 
is  uncertain — the  writer  reckoned  from  the  earliest 
steps  taken,  or  contemplated,  by  Antiochus  for  the 
the  suppression  of  Judaism.  The  purification  of  the 
Temple  did  not  end  the  time  of  persecution,  which 
was  to  continue,  first,  for  one  hundred  and  forty  days 
longer,  and  then  forty-five  days  more  (xii.  li,  12).  It  is 
clear  from  this  that  the  writer  reckoned  the  beginning 
and  the  end  of  troubles  from  "different  epochs  which 
we  have  no  longer  sufficient  data  to  discover. 

It  must,  however,  be  borne  in  mind  that  no  minute 
certainty  about  the  exact  dates  is  attainable.  Many 
authorities,  from  Prideaux^  down  to  Schiirer,^  place 
the  desecration  of  the  Temple  towards  the  close  of 
B.C.  168.  Kuenen  sees  reason  to  place  it  a  year  later. 
Our  authorities  for  this  period  of  history  are  numerous, 
but  they  are  fragmentary,  abbreviated,  and  often  inexact. 
Fortunately,  so  far  as  we  are  able  to  see,  no  very 
important  lesson  is  lost  by  our  inability  to  furnish 
an  undoubted  or  a  rigidly  scientific  explanation  of  the 
minuter  details. 

Approximate  Dates,  as  inferred  by  Cornill 
AND  Others  ^ 

B.C. 

Jeremiah's  prophecy  in  Jer.  xxv.  12  .  .  605 
Jeremiah's  prophecy  in  Jer.  xxix.  10  .  .  594 
Destruction  of  the  Temple  .  .  .  586  or  588 
Return  of  the  Jewish  exiles  ,         .         -537 

Decree  of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus  (Ezra  vii.  i)  458 

'  Connectioftf  ii.  188. 
^  Gesch.  d.  V.  Isr.,  i.  155. 

^  Some  of  these  dates    are  uncertain,  and  are  variously  given  by 
different  authorities. 


THE  RAM  AND   THE  HE-GOAT  267 

Approximate  Dates  {continued) 

B.C. 

Second  decree  (Neh.  ii.  i)  .  .  .  .  445 
Accession  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes    (August, 

Clinton) 175 

Usurpation  of  the  high-priesthood  by  Jason  175 
Jason  displaced  by  Menelaus         .         .         .     172  (?) 

Murder  of  Onias  III (June)  171 

Apollonius  defiles  the  Temple  .  .  .  i68 
War  of  independence  .  .  .  .  .  166 
Purification  of  the  Temple  by  Judas  the  Mac- 

cabee (December)  165 

Death  of  Antiochus 163 


CHAPTER   III 

THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS 

THIS  chapter  is  occupied  with  the  prayer  of  Daniel, 
and  with  the  famous  vision  of  the  seventy  weeks 
which  has  led  to  such  interminable  controversies,  but 
of  which  the  interpretation  no  longer  admits  of  any 
certainty,  because  accurate  data  are  not  forthcoming. 

The  vision  is  dated  in  the  first  year  of  Darius,  the 
son  of  Achashverosh,  of  the  Median  stock.^  We  have 
seen  already  that  such  a  person  is  unknown  to  history. 
The  date,  however,  accords  well  in  this  instance  with 
the  literary  standpoint  of  the  writer.  The  vision  is 
sent  as  a  consolation  of  perplexities  suggested  by  the 
writer's  study  of  the  Scriptures  ;  and  nothing  is  more 
naturally  imagined  than  the  fact  that  the  overthrow 
of  the  Babylonian  Empire  should  have  sent  a  Jewish 
exile  to  the  study  of  the  rolls  of  his  holy  prophets,  to 
see  what  light  they  threw  on  the  exile  of  his  people. 

He  understood  from  ''  the  books  "  the  number  of  the 
years  **  whereof  the  word  of  the  Lord  came  to  Jeremiah 
the  prophet  for  the  accomplishing  of  the  desolation  of 
Jerusalem,  even  seventy  years."  ^     Such  is  the  render- 


*  Achashverosh,  Esther  viii.  lo;  perhaps  connected  with  iTsAo/rtrsAa, 
"  eye  of  the  kingdom"  {Corp.  Inscr.  Sent.,  ii.  125), 

-  By  "  the  books  "  is  here  probably  meant  the  Thorah  or  Pentateuch, 
in  which  the  writer  discovered  the  key  to  the  mystic  meaning  of  the 

268 


THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  269 


ing  of  our  Revisers,  who  here  follow  the  A.V.  ("I 
understood  by  books  "),  except  that  they  rightly  use  the 
definite  article  (LXX.,  iv  Tal<;  ^II3Xol<;).  Such  too  is  the 
view  of  Hitzig.  Mr.  Be  van  seems  to  have  pointed  out 
the  real  meaning  of  the  passage,  by  referring  not  only 
to  the  Pentateuch  generally,  as  helping  to  interpret  the 
words  of  Jeremiah,  but  especially  to  Lev.  xxvi.  18,  21, 
24,  28}  It  was  there  that  the  writer  of  Daniel  dis- 
covered the  method  of  interpreting  the  *'  seventy  years  " 
spoken  of  by  Jeremiah.  The  Book  of  Leviticus  had 
four  times  spoken  of  a  sevenfold  punishment — a  punish- 
ment "  seven  times  more  "  for  the  sins  of  Israel.  Now 
this  thought  flashed  upon  the  writer  like  a  luminous 
principle.  Daniel,  in  whose  person  he  wrote,  had 
arrived  at  the  period  at  which  the  literal  seventy  years 
of  Jeremiah  were — on  some  methods  of  computation — 
upon  the  eve  of  completion  :  the  writer  himself  is  living 
in  the  dreary  times  of  Antiochus.  Jeremiah  had  pro- 
phesied that  the  nations  should  serve  the  King  of 
Babylon  seventy  years  (Jer.  xxv.  11),  after  which  time 
God's  vengeance  should  fall  on  Babylon ;  and  again 
(Jer.  xxix.  10,  1 1 ),  that  after  seventy  years  the  exiles 
should  return  to  Palestine,  since  the  thoughts  of 
Jehovah  towards  them  were  thoughts  of  peace  and  not 
of  evil,  to  give  them  a  future  and  a  hope. 

The  writer  of  Daniel  saw,  nearly  four  centuries  later, 

seventy  years.  It  was  not  in  the  two  sections  of  Jeremiah  himself 
(called,  according  to  Kimchi,  Sepher  Hamattanah  and  Sepher  Hagalon) 
that  he  found  this  key.  Jeremiah  is  here  Ytr'myah,  as  in  Jer. 
xxvii.-xxix.  See  Jer.  xxv.  11 ;  Ezek.  xxxvii.  21  ;  Zech.  i.  12.  In  the 
Epistle  of  Jeremy  (ver.  2)  the  seventy  years  become  seven  generations 
(XP^vos  fiaKpoi  ^ws  eTTTTtt  yevedp).     See  too  Dillman's  Enoch,  p.  293. 

'  Dan.,  p.  146.  Comp.  a  similar  usage  in  Aul.  Gell.,  Nod.  Att., 
iii.  10,  "  Se  jam  undecimam  annorunt  hebdomadem.  ingressum  esse"; 
and  Arist.,  Polit.,  vii.  16. 


270  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

that  after  all  only  a  mere  handful  of  the  exiles,  whom 
the  Jews  themselves  compared  to  the  chaff  in  comparison 
with  the  wheat,  had  returned  from  exile ;  that  the 
years  which  followed  had  been  cramped,  dismal,  and 
distressful ;  that  the  splendid  hopes  of  the  Messianic 
kingdom,  which  had  glowed  so  brightly  on  the  fore- 
shortened horizon  of  Isaiah  and  so  many  of  the 
prophets,  had  never  yet  been  fulfilled  ;  and  that  these 
anticipations  never  showed  fewer  signs  of  fulfilment 
than  in  the  midst  of  the  persecuting  furies  of  Antiochus, 
supported  by  the  widespread  apostasies  of  the  Hellen- 
ising  Jews,  and  the  vile  ambition  of  such  renegade 
high  priests  as  Jason  and  Menelaus. 

That  the  difficulty  was  felt  is  shown  by  the  fact  that 
the  Epistle  of  Jeremy  (ver.  2)  extends  the  epoch  of 
captivity  to  two  hundred  and  ten  years  (7  x  30), 
whereas  in  Jer.  xxix.  10  "  seventy  years  "  are  distinctly 
mentioned.^ 

What  was  the  explanation  of  this  startling  apparent 
discrepancy  between  ''  the  sure  word  of  prophecy  "  and 
the  gloomy  realities  of  history  ? 

The  writer  saw  it  in  a  mystic  or  allegorical  inter- 
pretation of  Jeremiah's  seventy  years.  The  prophet 
could  not  (he  thought)  have  meant  seventy  literal  years. 
The  number  seven  indeed  played  its  usual  mystic  part 
in  the  epoch  of  punishment.  Jerusalem  had  been  taken 
B.C.  588  ;  the  first  return  of  the  exiles  had  been  about 
B.C.  538.  The  Exile  therefore  had,  from  one  point  of 
view,  lasted  forty-nine  years — i.e.,  7^-7-  But  even  if 
seventy  years  were  reckoned  from  the  fourth  year  of 
Jehoiakim  (b.c.  606?)  to  the  decree  of  Cyrus  (b.c.  536), 
and  if  these    seventy   years  could  be  made  out,  still 

*  See  Fritzsche  ad  he. ;  Ewald,  Hist,  of  Isr.,  v.  140. 


THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  271 

the   hopes  of  the  Jews  were  on   the  whole   miserably 
frustrated.^ 

Surely  then — so  thought  the  writer — the  real  meaning 
of  Jeremiah  must  have  been  misunderstood ;  or,  at  any 
rate,  only  partially  understood.  He  must  have  meant, 
not  "  years,"  but  weeks  of  years — Sabbatical  years.  And 
that  being  so,  the  real  Messianic  fulfilments  were  not  to 
come  till  four  hundred  and  ninety  years  after  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Exile ;  and  this  clue  he  found  in  Leviticus. 
It  was  indeed  a  clue  which  lay  ready  to  the  hand  of 
any  one  who  was  perplexed  by  Jeremiah's  prophecy, 
for  the  word  WT^,  e/SSoyLta?,  means,  not  only  the  week, 
but  also  "  seven,"  and  the  seventh  year ;  ^  and  the 
Chronicler  had  already  declared  that  the  reason  why 
the  land  was  to  lie  waste  for  seventy  years  was  that 
**  the  land"  was  "to  enjoy  her  Sabbaths";  in  other 
words,  that,  as  seventy  Sabbatical  years  had  been  wholly 
neglected  (and  indeed  unheard  of)  during  the  period  of 
the  monarchy — which  he  reckoned  at  four  hundred  and 
ninety  years — therefore  it  was  to  enjoy  those  Sabbatical 
years  continuously  while  there  was  no  nation  in  Pales- 
tine to  cultivate  the  soil.^ 

'  The  writer  of  2  Chron,  xxxv.  17,  18,  xxxvi.  21,  22,  evidently 
supposed  that  seventy  years  had  elapsed  between  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  and  the  decree  of  Cyrus — which  is  only  a  period  of  fifty 
years.  The  Jewish  writers  were  wholly  without  means  for  forming  an 
accurate  chronology.  For  instance,  the  Prophet  Zechariah  (i.  12), 
writing  in  the  second  year  of  Darius,  son  of  Hystaspes  (b,c.  520), 
thinks  that  the  seventy  years  were  only  then  concluding.  In  fact,  the 
seventy  years  may  be  dated  from  b.c.  606  (fourth  year  of  Jehoia- 
kim)  ;'or  B.c.  598  (Jehoiachin) ;  or  from  the  destruction  of  the  Temple 
(B.C.  588)  ;  and  may  be  supposed  to  end  at  the  decree  of  Cyrus  (b.c. 
536)  ;  or  the  days  of  Zerubbabel  (Ezra  v.  i)  ;  or  the  decree  of  Darius 
(B.C.  518,  Ezra  vi.  1-12). 

-  Lev.  XXV.  2,  4. 

^  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  21,     See  Bevan,  p.  14. 


272  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

Another  consideration  may  also  have  led  the  writer 
to  his  discovery.  From  the  coronation  of  Saul  to  the 
captivity  of  Zachariah,  reckoning  the  recorded  length 
of  each  reign  and  giving  seventeen  years  to  Saul  (since 
the  "forty  years"  of  Acts  xiii.  21  is  obviously  unten- 
able), gave  four  hundred  and  ninety  years,  or,  as  the 
Chronicler  implies,  seventy  unkept  Sabbatic  years.  The 
writer  had  no  means  for  an  accurate  computation  of 
the  time  which  had  elapsed  since  the  destruction  of  the 
Temple.  But  as  there  were  four  hundred  and  eighty 
years  and  twelve  high  priests  from  Aaron  to  Ahimaaz, 
and  four  hundred  and  eighty  years  and  twelve  high 
priests  from  Azariah  I.  to  Jozadak,  who  was  priest  at 
the  beginning  of  the  Captivity, — so  there  were  twelve 
high  priests  from  Jozadak  to  Onias  III. ;  and  this 
seemed  to  imply  a  lapse  of  some  four  hundred  and 
ninety  years  in  round  numbers.^ 

The  writer  introduces  what  he  thus  regarded  as  a 
consoling  and  illuminating  discovery  in  a  striking 
manner.  Daniel  coming  to  understand  for  the  first 
time  the  real  meaning  of  Jeremiah's  '*  seventy  years," 
"  set  his  face  unto  the  Lord  God,  to  seek  prayer  and 
supplication  with  fasting  and  sackcloth  and  ashes."  ^ 

His  prayer  is  thus  given  : — 

It  falls  into  three  strophes  of  equal  length,  and  is 
"  all  alive  and  aglow  with  a  pure  fire  of  genuine  repent- 
ance, humbly  assured  faith,  and  most  intense  petition."  ^ 
At   the  same  time  it  is  the  composition  of  a  literary 

'  See  Cornill,  Die  Siebzig  Jahrwochen  Daniels^  pp.  14-18. 

^  The  LXX.  and  Theodotion,  with  a  later  ritual  bias,  make  th^fasimg 
a  means  towards  the  prayer  :  evpelv  irpoaevxv^  Kai  ^Xeos  iv  vriarelais. 

^  Ewald,  p.  278.  The  first  part  (vv.  4-14)  is  mainly  occupied  with  con- 
fessions and  acknowledgment  of  God's  justice;  the  last  part  (vv.  15-19) 
with  entreaty  for  pardon  :  confessio  (vv.  4-14) ;  consolatio  (vv.  15-19) 
(Melancthon). 


THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS 


273 


writer,  for  in  phrase  after  phrase  it  recalls  various 
passages  of  Scripture.^  It  closely  resembles  the  prayers 
of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  and  is  so  nearly  parallel  with 
the  prayer  of  the  apocryphal  Baruch  that  Ewald  regards 
it  as  an  intentional  abbreviation  of  Baruch  ii.  i-iii.  39. 
Ezra,  however,  confesses  the  sins  of  his  nation  without 
asking  for  forgiveness ;  and  Nehemiah  hkewise  praises 
God  for  His  mercies,  but  does  not  plead  for  pardon  or 
deliverance ;  but  Daniel  entreats  pardon  for  Israel  and 
asks  that  his  own  prayer  may  be  heard.  The  sins  of 
Israel  in  vv.  5,  6,  fall  under  the  heads  of  wandering, 
lawlessness,  rebellion,  apostasy,  and  heedlessness.  It 
is  one  of  the  marked  tendencies  of  the  later  Jewish 
writings  to  degenerate  into  centos  of  phrases  from  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets.  It  is  noticeable  that  the  name 
Jehovah  occurs  in  this  chapter  of  Daniel  alone  (in  vv.  2,  4, 
10,  13,  14,  20)  ;  and  that  he  also  addresses  God  as  El, 
Elohim,  and  Adonai. 

In  the  first  division  of  the  prayer  (vv.  4-10)  Daniel 


*  Besides  the  parallels  which  follow,  it  has  phrases  from  Exod. 
XX.  6;  Deut.  vii.  21,  x.  17;  Jer.  vii.  19;  Psalm  xliv.  16,  cxxx.  4; 
2  Chron.  xxxvi.  15,  16.  Mr.  Deane  (Bishop  EUicott's  Commentary, 
p.  407)  thus  exhibits  the  details  of  special  resemblances  : — 


Dan.  ix. 

Ezra  ix. 

Neh.  ix. 

Baruch. 

Verse. 

Verse. 

Verse. 

4 

7 

32 

5 

7 

33,34 

1.  II 

6 

1 

32,33 

7 

6,7 

32,33 

1-  15-17 

8 

6,7 

33 

9 

... 

17 

... 

13 

... 

ii.7 

14 

IS 

33 

15 

... 

10 

11.  II 

18 

... 

... 

ii.  19 

19 

... 

... 

ii.  15 

18 


274  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

admits  the  faithfulness  and  mercy  of  God,  and  deplores 
the  transgressions  of  his  people  from  the  highest  to 
the  lowest  in  all  lands. 

In  the  second  part  (vv.  !i-i4)  he  sees  in  these 
transgressions  the  fulfilment  of  '^  the  curse  and  the 
oath  "  written  in  the  Law  of  Moses,  with  special  refer- 
ence to  Lev.  xxvi.  14,  18,  etc.  In  spite  of  all  their 
sins  and  miseries  they  had  not  *'  stroked  the  face "  of 
the  Lord  their  God.^ 

The  third  section  (vv.  15-19)  appeals  to  God  by 
His  past  mercies  and  deliverances  to  turn  away  His 
wrath  and  to  pity  the  reproach  of  His  people.  Daniel 
entreats  Jehovah  to  hear  his  prayer,  to  make  His  face 
shine  on  His  desolated  sanctuary,  and  to  behold  the 
horrible  condition  of  His  people  and  of  His  holy  city. 
Not  for  their  sakes  is  He  asked  to  show  His  great 
compassion,  but  because  His  Name  is  called  upon  His 
city  and  His  people.^ 

Such  is  the  prayer;  and  while  Daniel  was  still 
speaking,  praying,  confessing  his  own  and  Israel's 
sins,  and  interceding  before  Jehovah  for  the  holy 
mountain  —  yea,  even  during  the  utterance  of  his 
prayer — the  Gabriel  of  his  former  vision  came  speed- 
ing to  him    in   full  flight^  at  the  time  of  the  evening 

•  ix.  13  (Heb.).  Comp.  Exod.  xxxii.  13;  I  Sam.  xiii.  12;  I  Kings 
xiii.  6,  etc. 

'•^  Comp.  Jer.  xxxii.  17-23;  Isa.  Ixiii.  11-16. 

^  ix.  21,  LXX.,  rdxft  0epo/"ei'os;  Theodot.,  TTCTbixevos ',  Vulg.,  cito 
volans ;  A.V.  and  R.V.,  "  being  made  to  fly  swiftly" ;  R.V.  marg.,  "  being 
sore  wearied  " ;  A.V.  marg.,  "  with  weariness  "  ;  Von  Lengerke,  "  being 
caused  to  hasten  with  haste."  The  verb  elsewhere  always  connotes 
wearhiess.  If  that  be  the  meaning  here,  it  must  refer  to  Daniel.  If 
it  here  means  "  flying,"  it  is  the  only  passage  in  the  Old  Testament 
where  angels  fly ;  but  see  Isa,  vi.  2 ;  Psalm  civ.  4,  etc.  The  wings 
of  angels  are  first  mentioned  in  the  Book  of  Enoch,  Ixi. ;  but  see  Rev 
xiv.  6 — cherubim  and  seraphim  have  wings. 


THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  .  275 

sacrifice.-'  The  archangel  tells  him  that  no  sooner  had 
his  supplication  begun  than  he  sped  on  his  way,  for 
Daniel  is  a  dearly  beloved  one.^  Therefore  he  bids 
him  take  heed  to  the  word  and  to  the  vision  : — 

1.  Seventy  weeks  are  decreed  upon  thy  people,  and 
upon  thy  holy  city  ^ — 

(a)  to  finish  (or  "  restrain  ")  the  transgression  ; 

(/8)  to  make  an  end  of  (or  ''  seal  up,"  Theodot. 
a^payia-aC)  sins ;  * 

(7)  to  make  reconciliation  for  (or  *'  to  purge  away  ") 
iniquity ; 

(S)  to  bring  in  everlasting  righteousness  ; 

(e)  to  seal  up  vision  and  prophet  (Heb.,  nabt]  LXX., 
7rpo(j>')]Tr]v) ;  and 

(f)  to  anoint  the  Most  Holy  (or  ''a  Most  Holy 
Place " ;  LXX.,  ev^pavai  dycov  dyloyv). 

2.  From  the  decree  to  restore  Jerusalem  unto  the 
Anointed  One  (or  ^'  the  Messiah  "),  the  Prince,  shall  be 
seven  weeks.  For  sixty-two  weeks  Jerusalem  shall  be 
built  again  with  street  and  moat,  though  in  troublous 
times.^ 

3.  After  these  sixty-two  weeks — 

(a)  an  Anointed  One  shall  be  cut  off,  and  shall  have 

'  In  the  time  of  the  historic  Daniel,  as  in  the  brief  three  and  a 
half  years  of  Antiochus,  the  tamid  had  ceased. 

2  ix.  23.  Heb,,  eesh  hamudoth ;  Vulg.,  vir  destderiorum,  "  a  man  of 
desires  "  ;  Theodot.,  dvT]p  i7ndv/j.LQv.  Comp.  x.  11,  19,  and  Jer.  xxxi.  20, 
where  "  a  pleasant  child  "  is  "  a  son  of  caresses"  ;  and  the  "amor  et 
delicice  generis  humani''^  applied  to  Titus;  and  the  names  David, 
Jedidiah,  "  beloved  of  Jehovah."  The  LXX.  render  the  word 
e\€€Lv6s,  "  an  object  of  pity." 

^  Daniel  used  Shabimn  for  weeks,  not  Shabuoth. 

^  In  ver,  24  the  Q'ri  and  Kethibh  vary,  as  do  also  the  versions. 

^  For  charoots,  "  moat "  (Ewald),  the  A.V.  has  "  wall,"  and  in  the 
marg.  "breach"  or  "ditch."  The  word  occurs  for  "ditches"  in  the 
Talmud.     The  text  of  the  verse  is  uncertain. 


276  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

no  help  (?)  (or  ''  there  shall  be  none  belonging  to 
him  ") ;  1 

(/?)  the  people  of  the  prince  that  shall  come  shall 
destroy  the  city  and  the  sanctuary  ; 

(7)  his  end  and  the  end  shall  be  with  a  flood,  and 
war,  and  desolation ; 

(S)  for  one  week  this  alien  prince  shall  make  a 
covenant  with  many ; 

(e)  for  half  of  that  week  he  shall  cause  the  sacrifice 
and  burnt  offering  to  cease  ; 

(f )  and  upon  the  wing  of  abominations  [shall  come] 
one  that  maketh  desolate  ; 

(?;)  and  unto  the  destined  consummation  [wrath']  shall 
be  poured  out  upon  a  desolate  one  (?)  (or  ''  the  horrible 
one  "). 

Much  is  uncertain  in  the  text,  and  much  in  the 
translation ;  but  the  general  outline  of  the  declaration 
is  clear  in  many  of  the  chief  particulars,  so  far  as  they 
are  capable  of  historic  verification.  Instead  of  being 
a  mystical  prophecy  which  floated  purely  in  the  air, 
and  in  which  a  week  stands  (as  Keil  supposes)  for 
unknown,  heavenly,  and  symbolic  periods — in  which 
case  no  real  information  would  have  been  vouchsafed — 
we  are  expressly  told  that  it  was  intended  to  give  the 
seer  a  definite,  and  even  a  minutely  detailed,  indication 
of  the  course  of  events. 

Let  us  now  take  the  revelation  which  is  sent  to  the 
perplexed  mourner  step  by  step. 

I.  Seventy  weeks  are  to  elapse  before  any  perfect 
deliverance  is  to  come.  We  are  nowhere  expressly 
told   that  year-weeks  are    meant,    but    this    is   implied 


'  Perhaps  because  neither  Jason  nor  Menelaus   (being  apostate) 
were  regarded  as  genuine  successors  of  Onias  III. 


THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  277 

throughout,  as  the  only  possible  means  of  explaining 
either  the  vision  or  the  history.  The  conception,  as 
we  have  seen,  would  come  to  readers  quite  naturally, 
since  Shabbath  meant  in  Hebrew,  not  only  the  seventh 
day  of  the  week,  but  the  seventh  year  in  each  week 
of  years.  Hence  "  seventy  weeks  "  means  four  hundred 
and  ninety  years.^  Not  until  the  four  hundred  and 
ninety  yea7's — the  seventy  weeks  of  years — are  ended 
will  the  time  have  come  to  complete  the  prophecy  which 
only  had  a  sort  of  initial  and  imperfect  fulfilment  in 
seventy  actual  years. 

The  precise  meaning  attached  in  the  writer's  mind 
to  the  events  which  are  to  mark  the  close  of  the  four 
hundred  and  ninety  years — namely,  (a)  the  ending  of 
transgression  ;  (/8)  the  sealing  up  of  sins ;  (7)  the  atone- 
ment for  iniquity;  (5)  the  bringing  in  of  everlasting 
righteousness ;  and  (e)  the  sealing  up  of  the  vision  and 
prophet  (or  prophecy  ^) — cannot  be  further  defined  by 
us.  It  belongs  to  the  Messianic  hope.^  It  is  the  pro- 
phecy of  a  time  which  may  have  had  some  dim  and 
partial  analogies  at  the  end  of  Jeremiah's  seventy  years, 
but  which  the  writer  thought  would  be  more  richly  and 
finally  fulfilled  at  the  close  of  the  Antiochian  persecu- 
tion. At  the  actual  time  of  his  writing  that  era  of 
restitution  had  not  yet  begun. 

But  (f)  another  event,  which  would  mark  the  close 
of  the  seventy  year-weeks,  was  to  be  "  the  anointing 
of  a  Most  Holy." 

What  does  this  mean  ? 

Theodotion  and  the  ancient  translators  render  it 
''«  Holy  of  Holies."     But  throughout  the  whole  Old 

*  Numb.  xiv.  34 ;  Lev.  xxvi.  34 ;  Ezek.  iv,  6. 
^  Comp.  Jer.  xxxii.  11,  44. 

*  See  Isa.  xlvi.  3,  li.  5,  liii.  11  ;  Jer.  xxiii.  6,  etc. 


278  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

Testament  ''Holy  of  Holies  "  is  never  once  used  of  a 
person^  though  it  occurs  forty-four  times.^  Keil  and 
his  school  point  to  I  Chron.  xxiii.  13  as  an  exception  ; 
but  '^  Nil  agit  exemptum  quod  litem  lite  resolvity 

In  that  verse  some  propose  the  rendering,  ''  to 
sanctify,  as  most  holy,  Aaron  and  his  sons  for  ever " ; 
but  both  the  A.V.  and  the  R.V.  render  it,  "Aaron  was 
separated  that  he  should  sanctify  the  most  holy  things^ 
he  and  his  sons  for  ever."  If  there  be  a  doubt  as  to 
the  rendering,  it  is  perverse  to  adopt  the  one  which 
makes  the  usage  differ  from  that  of  every  other  passage 
in  Holy  Writ. 

Now  the  phrase  ''most  holy"  is  most  frequently 
apphed  to  the  great  altar  of  sacrifice.^  It  is  therefore 
natural  to  explain  the  present  passage  as  a  reference 
to  the  reanointing  of  the  altar  of  sacrifice,  primarily 
in  the  days  of  Zerubbabel,  and  secondarily  by  Judas 
Maccabseus  after  its  profanation  by  Antiochus  Epi- 
phanes.^ 

2.  But  in  the  more  detailed  explanation  which 
follows,  the  seventy  year-weeks  are  divided  into 
7  +  62+1. 

(a)  At  the  end  of  the  first  seven  week-years  (after 
forty-nine  years)  Jerusalem  should  be  restored,  and 
there  should  be  "an  Anointed,  a  Prince."* 

Some  ancient  Jewish  commentators,  followed  by 
many  eminent  and  learned  moderns,"  understand  this 
Anointed   One   (Mashiach)  and   Prince  (Nagtd)  to   be 

^  For  the  anointing  of  the  altar  see  Exod.  xxix.  36,  xl.  10;  Lev. 
viii.  1 1  ;  Numb.  vii.  i.  It  would  make  no  difference  in  the  usus  loqtiendi 
if  neither  Zerubbabel's  nor  Judas's  altar  was  actually  anointed. 

2  It  is  only  used  thirteen  times  of  the  Debhir,  or  Holiest  Place. 

3  I  Mace.  iv.  54. 

^  Theodot.,  ews  xfnarov  riyov/Mivov. 

•"*  Saadia  the  Gaon,  Rashi,  Von  Lengerke,  Hitzig,  Schurer,  Cornill. 


THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  279 

Cyrus ;  and  that  there  can  be  no  objection  to  conferring 
on  him  the  exalted  title  of  '*  Messiah"  is  amply  proved 
by  the  fact  that  Isaiah  himself  bestows  it  upon  him 
(Isa.  xlv.  i). 

Others,  however,  both  ancient  (like  Eusebius)  and 
modern  (like  Gratz),  prefer  to  explain  the  term  of 
the  anointed  Jewish  high  priest,  Joshua,  the  son  of 
Jozadak.  For  the  term  '*  Anointed  "  is  given  to  the 
high  priest  in  Lev.  iv.  3,  vi.  20 ;  and  Joshua's  position 
among  the  exiles  might  well  entitle  him,  as  much  as 
Zerubbabel  himself,  to  the  title  of  Nagid  or  Prince.-^ 

(/5)  After  this  restoration  of  Temple  and  priest,  sixty- 
two  weeks  (/>.,  four  hundred  and  thirty-four  years)  are  to 
elapse,  during  which  Jerusalem  is  indeed  to  exist  "with 
street  and  trench  " — but  in  the  straitness  of  the  times.^ 

This,  too,  is  clear  and  easy  of  comprehension.  It 
exactly  corresponds  with  the  depressed  condition  of 
Jewish  life  during  the  Persian  and  early  Grecian 
epochs,  from  the  restoration  of  the  Temple,  b.c.  538,  to 
B.C.  171,  when  the  false  high  priest  Menelaus  robbed 
the  Temple  of  its  best  treasures.  This  is  indeed,  so 
far  as  accurate  chronology  is  concerned,  an  unverifiable 
period,  for  it  only  gives  us  three  hundred  and  sixty- 
seven  years  instead  of  four  hundred  and  thirty-four : — 
but  of  that  I  will  speak  later  on.  The  punctuation  of 
the  original  is  disputed.  Theodotion,  the  Vulgate,  and 
our  A.V.  punctuate  in  ver.  25,  "  From  the  going  forth  of 
the  commandment "  ("  decree  "  or  *'  word  ")  "  that  Jeru- 

'  Hag.  i.  I ;  Zech.  iii.  I ;  Ezra  iii.  2.  Comp.  Ecclus.  xlv.  24;  Jos., 
Anit.,  XII.  iv.  2,  TrpoaTdrrjs ;  and  see  Bevan,  p.  156. 

^  We  see  from  Zech.  i.  12,  ii.  4,  that  even  in  the  second  year  of 
Darius  Hystaspis  Jerusalem  had  neither  walls  nor  gates ;  and  even 
in  the  twentieth  year  of  Artaxerxes  the  wall  was  still  broken  down 
and  the  gates  burnt  (Neh.  i.  3). 


28o  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

salem  should  be  restored  and  rebuilt,  unto  an  Anointed, 
a  Prince,  are  seven  weeks,  and  sixty-two  weeks." 
Accepting  this  view,  Von  Lengerke  and  Hitzig  make 
the  seven  weeks  run  parallel  with  the  first  seven  in  the 
sixty-two.  This  indeed  makes  the  chronology  a  little 
more  accurate,  but  introduces  an  unexplained  and  a 
fantastic  element.  Consequently  most  modern  scholars, 
including  even  such  writers  as  Keil,  and  our  Revisers 
follow  the  Masoretic  punctuation,  and  put  the  stop  after 
the  seven  weeks,  separating  them  entirely  from  the 
following  sixty-two. 

3.  After  the  sixty-two  weeks  is  to  follow  a  series  of 
events,  and  all  these  point  quite  distinctly  to  the  epoch 
of  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 

(a)  Ver.  26. — An  Anointed  One  ^  shall  be  cut  off  with 
all  that  belongs  to  him. 

There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  this  is  a 
reference  to  the  deposition  of  the  high  priest  Onias  III., 
and  his  murder  by  Andronicus  (b.c.  171).^  This  startling 
event  is  mentioned  in  2  Mace.  iv.  34,  and  by  Josephus 
{Antt.,  XII.  V.  i),  and  in  Dan.  xi.  22.  It  is  added,  *'  and 
no  .  .  ,  to  him}  Perhaps  the  word  "  helper  "  (xi.  45)  has 
fallen  out  of  the  text,  as  Gratz  supposes ;  or  the  words 
may  mean,  "  there  is  no  [priest]  for  it  [the  people].'* 
The  A.V.  renders  it,    ''but  not   for  himself";  and  in 

^  LXX.,  6LTro(XTadr]<T€Tai  xptc/^a  Kai  ovk  ^arai ;  Theodot.,  i^oXedpevdiQcrerai 
■Xfilafxa  Kal  ovk  ^ariv  iv  avri^  ;  Aquil.,  e^.  rjXeifXfxiuos  Kal  oux  virdp^ei  avri^. 

2  See  xi.  22.  Von  Lengerke,  however,  and  others  refer  it  to 
Seleucus  Philopator,  murdered  by  Heliodorus  (b.c.  175). 

^  SjT.  Aquil.,  ovx  virdp^ei  avrip;  Theodot.,  Kai  oHk  €<ttiv  iv  avrcp ; 
LXX.,  Kai  OVK  'iaraL',  Vulg.,  "  Et  non  erit  ejus  populus  qui  eum  negaturus 
est."  The  A.V.  "and  not  for  himself"  is  untenable.  It  would  have 
been  r?  N7"l.     See  Pusey,  p.  182,  n. 

*  Steudel,  Hofmann.  So  too  Cornill,  p.  10  :  "  Ein  frommer  Jude 
das  Hoher  Priesterthum  mit  Onias  fur  erloschen  ansah." 


THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  281 

the  margin,  "and  shall  have  nothing";  or,  "and  they 
[the  Jews]  shall  be  no  more  his  people."  The  R.V. 
renders  it,  "  and  shall  have  nothing."  I  believe,  with 
Dr.  Joel,  that  in  the  Hebrew  words  veeyn  l6  there  may 
be  a  sort  of  cryptographic  allusion  to  the  name  Onias.^ 

(yS)  The  people  of  the  coming  prince  shall  devastate 
the  city  and  the  sanctuary  (translation  uncertain). 

This  is  an  obvious  allusion  to  the  destruction  and 
massacre  inflicted  on  Jerusalem  by  Apollonius  and  the 
army  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  (b.c.  167).  Antiochus  is 
called  "  the  prince  that  shall  come,^^  because  he  was  at 
Rome  when  Onias  III.  was  murdered  (b.c.  171).^ 

(7)  "And  until  the  end  shall  be  a  war,  a  sentence 
of  desolation  "  (Hitzig,  etc.)  ;  or,  as  Ewald  renders  it, 
"  Until  the  end  of  the  war  is  the  decision  concerning  the 
horrible  thing." 

This  alludes  to  the  troubles  of  Jerusalem  until  the 
heaven-sent  Nemesis  fell  on  the  profane  enemy  of  the 
saints  in  the  miserable  death  of  Antiochus  in  Persia. 

(S)  But  meanwhile  he  will  have  concluded  a  covenant 
with  many  for  one  week.^ 

In  any  case,  whatever  be  the  exact  reading  or 
rendering,  this  seems  to  be  an  allusion  to  the  fact 
that  Antiochus  was  confirmed  in  his  perversity  and  led 
on  to  extremes  in  the  enforcement  of  his  attempt  to 
Hellenise  the  Jews  and  to  abolish  their  national  religion 
by  the  existence  of  a  large  party  of  flagrant  apostates. 
These  were  headed  by  their  godless  and  usurping  high 

'  Comp.  1^  I^NI  and  VJH  (Joel,  Notisen,  p.  21). 

^  Jos.,  Aittt.  XII.  V.  4;  I  Mace.  i.  29-40. 

'  Here  again  the  meaning  is  uncertain  ;  and  Gratz,  altering  the 
reading,  thinks  that  it  should  be,  "  He  shall  abolish  the  covenant 
[with  God]  for  the  many  " ;  or,  "  shall  cause  the  many  to  transgress 
the  covenant." 


282  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

priests,  Jason  and  Menelaus.  All  this  is  strongly 
emphasised  in  the  narrative  of  the  Book  of  Maccabees. 
This  attempted  apostasy  lasted  for  one  week — i.e.j  for 
seven  years  ;  the  years  intended  being  probably  the 
first  seven  of  the  reign  of  Antiochus,  from  b.c.  175  to 
B.C.  168.  During  this  period  he  was  aided  by  wicked 
men,  who  said,  *'  Let  us  go  and  make  a  covenant  with 
the  heathen  round  about  us  ;  for  since  we  departed 
from  them  we  have  had  much  sorrow."  Antiochus 
''gave  them  licence  to  do  after  the  ordinances  of  the 
heathen,"  so  that  they  built  a  gymnasium  at  Jerusalem, 
obliterated  the  marks  of  circumcision,  and  were  joined 
to  the  heathen  (i  Mace.  i.  10-15). 

(e)  For  the  half  of  this  week  (/>.,  for  three  and  a  half 
years)  the  king  abolished  the  sacrifice  and  the  oblation 
or  meat  offering.^ 

This  alludes  to  the  suppression  of  the  most  distinctive 
ordinances  of  Jewish  worship,  and  the  general  defile- 
ment of  the  Temple  after  the  setting  up  of  the  heathen 
altar.  The  reckoning  seems  to  be  from  the  edict  promul- 
gated some  months  before  December,  168,  to  December, 
165,  when  Judas  the  Maccabee  reconsecrated  the  Temple. 

(f)  The  sentence  which  follows  is  surrounded  with 
every  kind  of  uncertainty. 

The  R.V.  renders  it,  "  And  upon  the  wing  [or,  pin- 
nacle] of  abominations  shall  come  [or,  be]  one  that 
maketh  desolate." 

The  A.V.  has,  "And  for  the  overspreading  of  abomi- 
nations "  (or  marg.j  **  with  the  abominable  armies  ")  ''  he 
shall  make  it  desolate."  ^ 

^  Dan.  ix.  27.  Heb.,  Zebach  oo-tnmchah,  "  the  bloody  and  unbloody 
offering." 

-  The  special  allusion,  whatever  it  may  precisely  mean,  is  found 
under  three  different  designations  :  (i)  In  viii.  13  it  is  called  happeshang 


THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  283 

It  is  from  the  LXX.  that  we  derive  the  famous 
expression,  "  abomination  of  desolation,"  referred  to  by 
St.  Matthew  (xxiv.  15  :  cf.  Luke  xxi.  20)  in  the  last 
discourse  of  our  Lord. 

Other  translations  are  as  follows : — 

Gesenius :  "  Desolation  comes  upon  the  horrible 
wing  of  a  rebel's  host." 

Ewald:  ^*And  above  will  be  the  horrible  wing  of 
abominations." 

Wieseler :  ''And  a  desolation  shall  arise  against  the 
wing  of  abominations." 

shomeetn ',  Gk.,  17  afiaprla  iprifidxretas ;  Vulg.,  peccatum  desolationis. 
(ii)  In  ix.  27  (comp.  ix.  31)  it  is  shiqqootsim  m'shomeew.)  Gk,, 
pdeXvyfJba  Ti]S  eprjfxdicreujs  ;  Yu\g.,  abominatw  desolah'om's.  (iii)  In  xii.  II 
it  is  shiqqoots  shomeem  ;  Gk.,  to  ^deXvy/uia  eprj/xwaeojs ;  Vulg.,  abotni- 
natio  in  desolationem.  Some  traditional  fact  must  (as  Dr.  Joel  says) 
have  underlain  the  rendering  ^' of  desolation  "  ior  ^' of  the  desolator^'' 
In  xi.  31  Theodotion  has  rjcpaviaixev^v,  "of  things  done  away  with," 
for  epr)fjioj(T4o}j'.  The  expression  with  which  the  New  Testament  has 
made  us  so  familiar  is  found  also  in  I  Mace.  i.  51  (comp.  i  Mace, 
vi.  7)  :  "  they  built  the  abomination  of  desolation  upon  the  altar." 
There  "  the  abomination  "  seems  clearly  to  mean  a  smaller  altar  for 
heathen  sacrifice  to  Zeus,  built  on  the  great  altar  of  burnt  offering. 
Perhaps  the  writer  of  Daniel  took  the  word  shomeem,  "  desolation,"  as 
a  further  definition  oi shiqqoots,  "abomination,"  from  popular  speech; 
and  it  may  have  involved  a  reference  to  Lev.  xxvi.  15-31  :  "If  ye 
shall  despise  My  statutes.  .  .  I  will  even  appoint  over  you  terror 
.  .  .  and  I  will  make  your  cities  waste,  and  appoint  your  sanctuaries 
unto  desolation.''''  The  old  Jewish  exegetes  referred  the  prophecy  to 
Antiochus  Epiphanes;  Josephus  and  later  writers  applied  it  to  the 
Romans.  Old  Christian  expositors  regarded  it  as  Messianic ;  but 
even  Jerome  records  nine  different  views  of  commentators,  many  of 
them  involving  the  grossest  historic  errors  and  absurdities.  Of  Post- 
Reformation  expositors  down  to  the  present  century  scarcely  two 
agree  in  their  interpretations.  At  the  present  day  modern  critics  of 
any  weight  almost  unanimously  regard  these  chapters,  in  their 
primary  significance,  as  vaticinia  ex  eventu,  as  some  older  Jewish  and 
Christian  exegetes  had  already  done.  Hitzig  sarcastically  says  that 
the  exegetes  have  here  fallen  into  all  sorts  of  shiqqootsim  themselves. 


284  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


Von  Lengerke,  Hengstenberg,  Pusey :  "  And  over  the 
edge  [or,  pinnacle^]  of  abominations  [cometh]  the  deso- 
lator  "  ; — which  they  understand  to  mean  that  Antiochus 
will  rule  over  the  Temple  defiled  by  heathen  rites. 

Kranichfeld  and  Keil :  ''And  a  destroyer  comes  on 
the  wings  of  idolatrous  abominations." 

Kuenen,  followed  by  others,  boldly  alters  the  text 
from  ve'al  k'naph,  "  and  upon  the  wing,"  into  ve'alkannoj 
"  and  instead  thereof."  ^ 

"And  instead  thereof"  (J.e.y  in  the  place  of  the  sacri- 
fice and  meat  offering)  "  there  shall  be  abominations." 

It  is  needless  to  weary  the  reader  with  further  attempts 
at  translation  ;  but  however  uncertain  may  be  the  exact 
reading  or  rendering,  few  modern  commentators  doubt 
that  the  allusion  is  to  the  smaller  heathen  altar  built  by 
Antiochus  above  {i.e.,  on  the  summit)  of  the  "  Most 
Holy  " — i.e.,  the  great  altar  of  burnt  sacrifice — over- 
shadowing it  like  "  a  wing "  {kanaph),  and  causing 
desolations  or  abominations  (shiqqootstm).  That  this 
interpretation  is  the  correct  one  can  hardly  be  doubted 
in  the  light  of  the  clearer  references  to  "  the  abomina- 
tion that  maketh  desolate"  in  xi.  31  and  xii.  11.  In 
favour  of  this  we  have  the  almost  contemporary  inter- 
pretation of  the  Book  of  Maccabees.  The  author  of 
that  history  directly  applies  the  phrase  "  the  abomina- 
tion of  desolation  "  to  the  idol  altar  set  up  by  Antiochus 
(i  Mace.  i.  54;  vi.  7). 

(77)  Lastly,  the  terrible  drama  shall  end  by  an  out- 
pouring of  wrath,  and  a  sentence  of  judgment  on 
"  the  desolation  "  (R.V.)  or  "  the  desolate  "  (A.V.). 

This  can  only  refer  to  the  ultimate  judgment  with 
which  Antiochus  is  menaced. 


Comp.  irTep<)yLov  (Matt.  iv.  5). 
Kuenen,  Hist.  Crit.  Onderzook.,  ii.  472, 


THE  SEVENTY   WEEKS  285 

It  will  be  seen  then  that,  despite  all  uncertainties  in 
the  text,  in  the  translation,  and  in  the  details,  we  have 
in  these  verses  an  unmistakably  clear  foreshadowing 
of  the  same  persecuting  king,  and  the  same  disastrous 
events,  with  which  the  mind  of  the  writer  is  so  pre- 
dominantly haunted,  and  which  are  still  more  clearly 
indicated  in  the  subsequent  chapter. 

Is  it  necessary,  after  an  inquiry  inevitably  tedious, 
and  of  little  or  no  apparently  spiritual  profit  or  signi- 
ficance, to  enter  further  into  the  intolerably  and  inter- 
minably perplexed  and  voluminous  discussions  as  to 
the  beginning,  the  ending,  and  the  exactitude  of  the 
seventy  weeks  ?  ^  Even  St.  Jerome  gives,  by  way  of 
specimen,  nine  different  interpretations  in  his  time,  and 
comes  to  no  decision  of  his  own.  After  confessing  that 
all  the  interpretations  wjre  individual  guesswork,  he 
leaves  every  reader  to  his  own  judgment,  and  adds  : 
"  Dicam  quid  unusquisque  senserit,  lecioris  arbitrio  dere- 
linquens  cujus  expositionem  sequi  debeat^ 

I  cannot  think  that  the  least  advantage  can  be  de- 
rived from  doing  so. 

For  scarcely  any  two  leading  commentators  agree 
as  to  details ; — or  even  as  to  any  fixed  principles  by 

•  Any  one  who  thinks  the  inquiry  likely  to  lead  to  any  better 
results  than  those  here  indicated  has  only  to  wade  through  Zockler's 
comment  in  Lange's  Bibelwerk  ("  Ezekiel  and  Daniel,"  i.  186-221).  It 
is  hard  to  conceive  any  reading  more  intolerably  wearisome  ;  and  at  the 
close  it  leaves  the  reader  in  a  state  of  more  hopeless  confusion  than 
before.  The  discussion  also  occupies  many  pages  of  Pusey  (pp.  162- 
231)  ;  but  neither  in  his  hypothesis  nor  any  other  are  the  dates  exact. 
He  can  only  say,  "  It  were  not  of  any  account  if  we  could  not  interpret 
these  minor  details.  De  nttntmis  non  curat  lex"  On  the  view  that 
the  seventy  weeks  were  to  end  with  the  advent  of  Christ  we  ask  : 
(l)  Why  do  no  two  Christian  interpreters  agree  about  the  interpreta- 
tion  ?  (2)  Why  did  not  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists  refer  to  so 
decisive  an  evidence  ? 


286  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

which  they  profess  to  determine  the  date  at  which  the 
period  of  seventy  weeks  is  to  begin  or  is  to  end ; — 
or  whether  they  are  to  be  reckoned  continuously,  or 
with  arbitrary  misplacements  or  discontinuations ; — 
or  even  whether  they  are  not  purely  symbolical,  so  as 
to  have  no  reference  to  any  chronological  indications  ;  ^ 
— or  whether  they  are  to  be  interpreted  as  referring 
to  one  special  series  of  events,  or  to  be  regarded  as 
having  many  fulfilments  by  "springing  and  germinal 
developments."  The  latter  view  is,  however,  distinctly 
tenable.  It  applies  to  all  prophecies,  inasmuch  as  his- 
tory repeats  itself;  and  our  Lord  referred  to  another 
"  abomination  of  desolation  "  which  in  His  days  was 
yet  to  come.^ 

There  is  not  even  an  initial  agreement — or  even  the 
data  as  to  an  agreement — whether  the  "  years  "  to  be 
counted  are  solar  years  of  three  hundred  and  forty-three 
days,  or  lunar  years,  or  "  mystic  "  years,  or  Sabbath 
years  of  forty-nine  years,  or  "indefinite"  years;  or  where 
they  are  to  begin  and  end,  or  in  what  fashion  they  are 
to  be  divided.    All  is  chaos  in  the  existing  commentaries. 

As  for  any  received  or  authorised  interpretation,  there 
not  only  is  none,  but  never  has  been.  The  Jewish 
interpreters  differ  from  one  another  as  widely  as  the 
Christian.  Even  in  the  days  of  the  Fathers,  the  early 
exegetes  were  so  hopelessly  at  sea  in  their  methods 


'  On  this,  however,  we  may  remark  with  Cornill,"  Eine  Apokalypse, 
deren  aTroKaXixj/eis  unenthiilbar  sind,  ware  ein  nonsens,  eine  contra- 
dictio  in  adjecto  "  (Die  Siebzig  Jahrwochen,  p.  3).  The  indication  was 
obviously  tneant  to  be  understood,  and  to  the  contemporaries  of  the 
writer,  familiar  with  the  minuter  facts  of  the  day,  it  probably  was 
perfectly  clear. 

-  Luke  ii.  25,  26,  38;  Matt.  xxiv.  15.  Comp.  2  Thess.  ii.;  Jos., 
Antt.y  X,  xxii.  7. 


THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  287 

of  application  that  St.  Jerome  contents  himself,  just  as 
I  have  done,  with  giving  no  opinion  of  his  own.^ 

The  attempt  to  refer  the  prophecy  of  the  seventy 
weeks  primarily  or  directly  to  the  coming  and  death 
of  Christ,  or  the  desolation  of  the  Temple  by  Titus, 
can  only  be  supported  by  immense  manipulations,  and 
by  hypotheses  so  crudely  impossible  that  they  would 
have  made  the  prophecy  practically  meaningless  both 
to  Daniel  and  to  any  subsequent  reader.  The  hope- 
lessness of  this  attempt  of  the  so-called  ''  orthodox  " 
interpreters  is  proved  by  their  own  fundamental  dis- 
agreements.^ It  is  finally  discredited  by  the  fact  that 
neither  our  Lord,  nor  His  Apostles,  nor  any  of  the 
earliest  Christian  writers  once  appealed  to  the  evidence 
of  this  prophecy,  which,  on  the  principles  of  Hengsten- 
berg  and  Dr.  Pusey,  would  have  been  so  decisive !  If 
such  a  proof  lay  ready  to  their  hand — a  proof  definite 
and  chronological — why  should  they  have  deliberately 
passed  it  over,  while  they  referred  to  other  prophecies 
so  much  more  general,  and  so  much  less  precise  in  dates? 

Of  course  it  is  open  to  any  reader  to  adopt  the  view 
of  Keil  and  others,  that  the  prophecy  is  Messianic,  but 
only  typically  and  generally  so. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  may  be  objected  that  the 
Antiochian  hypothesis  breaks  down,  because — though  it 


'  "  Scio  de  hac  quaestione  ab  eruditissimis  viris  varie  disputatum 
et  unuvnquemque  pro  captii  ingenii  sui  dixisse  quod  senserat"  (Jer. 
in  Dan.,  ix.).  In  other  words,  there  was  not  only  no  received  inter- 
pretation in  St.  Jerome's  day,  but  the  comments  of  the  Fathers  were 
even  then  a  chaos  of  arbitrary  guesses. 

'^  Pusey  makes  out  a  table  of  the  divergent  interpretation  of  the 
commentators,  whom,  in  his  usual  ecclesiastical  fashion,  he  charitably 
classes  together  as  "  unbelievers,"  from  Corrodi  and  Eichhorn  down 
to  Herzfeld.  But  quite  as  striking  a  table  of  divergencies  might 
be  drawn  up  of  "  orthodox  "  commentators. 


288  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

does  not  pretend  to  resort  to  any  of  the  wild,  arbitrary, 
and  I  had  almost  said  preposterous,  hypotheses  invented 
by  those  who  approach  the  interpretation  of  the  Book 
with  a-prwrt  a.nd  a-posteriori'^  assumptions — it  still  does 
not  accurately  correspond  to  ascertainable  dates. 

But  to  those  who  are  guided  in  their  exegesis,  not 
by  unnatural  inventions,  but  by  the  great  guiding 
principles  of  history  and  literature,  this  consideration 
presents  no  difficulty.  Any  exact  accuracy  of  chrono- 
logy would  have  been  far  more  surprising  in  a  writes 
of  the  Maccabean  era  than  round  numbers  and 
vague  computations.  Precise  computation  is  nowhere 
prevalent  in  the  sacred  books.  The  object  of  those 
books  always  is  the  conveyance  of  eternal,  moral,  and 
spiritual  instruction.  To  such  purely  mundane  and 
secondary  matters  as  close  reckoning  of  dates  the 
Jewish  writers  show  themselves  manifestly  indifferent. 
It  is  possible  that,  if  we  were  able  to  ascertain  the  data 
which  lay  before  the  writer,  his  calculations  might  seem 
less  divergent  from  exact  numbers  than  they  now  appear. 
More  than  this  we  cannot  affirm. 

What  was  the  date  from  which  the  writer  calculated 
his  seventy  weeks  ?  Was  it  from  the  date  of  Jeremiah's 
first  prophecy  (xxv.  12),  b.c.  605?  or  his  second 
prophecy  (xxix.  10),  eleven  years  later,  b.c.  594?  or 
from  the  destruction  of  the  first  Temple,  B.C.  586?  or, 
as  some  Jews  thought,  from  the  first  year  of  ''  Darius 
the  Mede  "  ?  or  from  the  decree  of  Artaxerxes  in  Neh. 
ii.  1-9  ?  or  from  the  birth  of  Christ — the  date  assumed 
by  ApoUinaris  ?  All  these  views  have  been  adopted  by 
various  Rabbis  and  Fathers  ;  but  it  is  obvious  that  not 
one  of  them  accords  with  the  allusions  of  the  narrative 

'  Thus  Eusebius,  without  a  shadow  of  any  pretence  at  argument 
makes  the  last  week  mean  seventy  years  !  (^Dem.  Evan.,  viii,). 


THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  289 

and  prayer,  except  that  which  makes  the  destruction 
of  the  Temple  the  terminus  a  quo.  In  the  confusion  of 
historic  reminiscences  and  the  rarity  of  written  docu- 
ments, the  writer  may  not  have  consciously  distinguished 
this  date  (b.c.  588)  from  the  date  of  Jeremiah's  prophecy 
(b.c.  594).  That  there  were  differences  of  computation 
as  regards  Jeremiah's  seventy  years,  even  in  the  age  of 
the  Exile,  is  sufficiently  shown  by  the  different  views  as 
to  their  termination  taken  by  the  Chronicler  (2  Chron. 
xxxvi.  22),  who  fixes  it  b.c.  536,  and  by  Zechariah 
(Zech.  i.    12),  who  fixes  it  about  b.c.   519. 

As  to  the  terminus  ad  quem,  it  is  open  to  any 
commentator  to  say  that  the  prediction  may  point  to 
many  subsequent  and  analogous  fulfilments ;  but  no 
competent  and  serious  reader  who  judges  of  these 
chapters  by  the  chapters  themselves  and  by  their  own 
repeated  indications,  can  have  one  moment's  hesitation 
in  the  conclusion  that  the  writer  is  thinking  mainly  of 
the  defilement  of  the  Temple  in  the  days  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes,  and  its  reconsecration  (in  round  numbers) 
three  and  a  half  years  later  by  Judas  Maccabaeus 
(December  25th,  b.c.   164). 

It  is  true  that  from  b.c.  588  to  b.c.  164  only  gives 
us  four  hundred  and  twenty-four  years,  instead  of  four 
hundred  and  ninety  years.  How  is  this  to  be  accounted 
for  ?  Ewald  supposes  the  loss  of  some  passage  in  the 
text  which  would  have  explained  the  discrepancy ;  and 
that  the  text  is  in  a  somewhat  chaotic  condition  is 
proved  by  its  inherent  philological  difficulties,  and  by 
the  appearance  which  it  assumes  in  the  Septuagint. 
The  first  seven  weeks  indeed,  or  forty-nine  years, 
approximately  correspond  to  the  time  between  b.c  588 
(the  destruction  of  the  Temple)  and  b.c  536  (the  decree 
of  Cyrus) ;  but   the  following    sixty-two  weeks   should 

19 


290  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

give  us  four  hundred  and  thirty-four  years  from  the 
time  of  Cyrus  to  the  cutting  off  of  the  Anointed  One, 
by  the  murder  of  Onias  III.  in  B.C.  171,  whereas  it  only 
gives  us  three  hundred  and  sixty-five.  How  are  we 
to  account  for  this  miscalculation  to  the  extent  of  at 
least  sixty-five  years  ? 

Not  one  single  suggestion  has  ever  accounted  for  it, 
or  has  ever  given  exactitude  to  these  computations  on 
any  tenable  hypothesis.^ 

But  Schurer  has  shown  that  exactly  similar  mistakes 
of  reckoning  are  made  even  by  so  learned  and  industrious 
an  historian  as  Josephus. 

1.  Thus  in  his  Jewish  War  (Vi.  iv.  8)  he  says  that 
there  were  six  hundred  and  thirty-nine  years  between 
the  second  year  of  Cyrus  and  the  destruction  of  the 
Temple  by  Titus  (a.d.  70).  Here  is  an  error  of  more 
than  thirty  years. 

2.  In  his  Antiquities  (XX.  x.)  he  says  that  there 
were  four  hundred  and  thirty-four  years  between  the 
Return  from  the  Captivity  (b.c.  536)  and  the  reign  of 
Antiochus  Eupator  (b.c.  164-162).  Here  is  an  error 
of  more  than  sixty  years. 

3.  In  Antt.,  XIII.  xi.  i,  he  reckons  four  hundred 
and  eighty-one  years  between  the  Return  from  the 
Captivity  and  the  time  of  Aristobulus  (b.c.  105-104). 
Here  is  an  error  of  some  fifty  years. 

Again,  the  Jewish  Hellenist  Demetrius  ^  reckons  five 
hundred  and  seventy-three  years  from  the  Captivity  of 
the  Ten  Tribes  (b.c.  722)  to  the  time  of  Ptolemy  IV. 

'  Jost  {Gesch.  d.  Judenthums,  i.  99)  contents  himself  with  speaking 
of  "  die  Liebe  zu  prophetischer  Auifassung  der  Vergangenheit,  mit 
mOglichst  genauen  Zahlenagaben,  befriedigt,  die  uns  leider  nicht  mehr 
verstandlich  erscheineny 

^  In  Clem.  Alex,,  Strom,,  i.  21. 


THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS  igt 

(B.C.  222),  which  is  seventy  years  too  many.  In  other 
words,  he  makes  as  nearly  as  possible  the  same  mis- 
calculations as  the  writer  of  Daniel.  This  seems  to 
show  that  there  was  some  traditional  error  in  the 
current  chronology ;  and  it  cannot  be  overlooked  that 
in  ancient  days  the  means  for  coming  to  accurate 
chronological  conclusion  were  exceedingly  imperfect. 
^'  Until  the  establishment  of  the  Seleucid  era  (b.c.  312), 
the  Jew  had  no  fixed  era  whatsoever " ;  ^  and  nothing 
is  less  astonishing  than  that  an  apocalyptic  writer  of 
the  date  of  Epiphanes,  basing  his  calculations  on  un- 
certain data  to  give  an  allegoric  interpretation  to  an 
ancient  prophecy,  should  have  lacked  the  records  v/hich 
would  alone  have  enabled  him  to  calculate  with  exact 
precision.^ 

And,  for  the  rest,  we  must  say  with  Grotius,  ^^  Modicum 
nee  prcetor  curatf  nee  propheta." 

'  Cornill,  p.  14;  Bevan,  p.  54. 

-  Schiirer,  Hist,  of  Jewish  People,  iii.  53,  54  (E.  Tr.).  This  is  also 
the  view  of  Graf,  Noldeke,  Cornill,  and  many  others.  In  any  case  we 
must  not  be  misled  into  an  impossible  style  of  exegesis  of  which  Bleek 
says  that  "bei  ihr  alles  moglich  ist  und  alles  fur  erlaubt  gilt." 


CHAPTER  IV 

INTRODUCTION    TO    THE   CONCLUDING    VISION 

THE  remaining  section  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  forms 
but  one  vision,  of  which  this  chapter  is  the  Intro- 
duction or  Prologue. 

Daniel  is  here  spoken  of  in  the  third  person. 

It  is  dated  in  the  third  year  of  Cyrus  (b.c.  535).^  We 
have  already  been  told  that  Daniel  lived  to  see  the  first 
year  of  Cyrus  (i.  21).  This  verse,  if  accepted  histori- 
cally, would  show  that  at  any  rate  Daniel  did  not  return 
to  Palestine  with  the  exiles.  Age,  high  rank,  and 
opportunities  of  usefulness  in  the  Persian  Court  may 
have  combined  to  render  his  return  undesirable  for  the 
interests  of  his  people.  The  date — the  last  given  in 
the  life  of  the  real  or  ideal  Daniel — is  perhaps  here 
mentioned  to  account  for  the  allusions  which  follow 
to  the  kingdom  of  Persia.  But  with  the  great  and 
moving  fortunes  of  the  Jews  after  the  accession  of 
Cyrus,  and  even  with  the  beginning  of  their  new 
national  life  in  Jerusalem,  the  author  is  scarcely  at  all 
concerned.  He  makes  no  mention  of  Zerubbabel  the 
prince,  nor  of  Joshua  the  priest,  nor  of  the  decree  of 

'  The  LXX.  date  it  in  "  the  first  year  of  Cyrus,"  perhaps  an  inten- 
tional alteration  (i.  21).  We  see  from  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  the  latest 
of  the  Minor  Prophets  that  there  was  scarcely  even  an  attempt  to 
restore  the  ruined  walls  of  Jerusalem  before  b.c.  444. 

292 


INTRODUCTION   TO    THE  CONCLUDING    VISION   293 

Cyrus,  nor  of  the  rebuilding  of  the  Temple  ;  his  whole 
concern  is  with  the  petty  wars  and  diplomacy  of  the 
reign  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  of  which  an  account  is 
given,  so  minute  as  either  to  furnish  us  with  historical 
materials  unknown  to  any  other  historian,  or  else  is 
difficult  to  reconcile  with  the  history  of  that  king's  reign 
as  it  has  been  hitherto  understood. 

In  this  chapter,  as  in  the  two  preceding,  there  are 
great  difficulties  and  uncertainties  about  the  exact  sig- 
nificance of  some  of  the  verses,  and  textual  emendations 
have  been  suggested.  The  readers  of  the  Expositor's 
Bible  would  not,  however,  be  interested  in  minute 
and  dreary  philological  disquisitions,  which  have  not 
the  smallest  moral  significance,  and  lead  to  no  certain 
result.  The  difficulties  affect  points  of  no  doctrinal 
importance,  and  the  greatest  scholars  have  been  unable 
to  arrive  at  any  agreement  respecting  them.  Such 
difficulties  will,  therefore,  merely  be  mentioned,  and  I 
shall  content  myself  with  furnishing  what  appears  to 
be  the  best  authenticated  opinion. 

The  first  and  second  verses  are  rendered  partly  by 
Ewald  and  partly  by  other  scholars,  **  Truth  is  the 
revelation,  and  distress  is  great;  ^  therefore  understand 
thou  the  revelation y  since  there  is  understanding  of  it 
in  the  vision^  The  admonition  calls  attention  to  the 
importance  of  ''  the  word,"  and  the  fact  that  reality  lies 
beneath  its  enigmatic  and  apocalyptic  form. 

Daniel    had    been    mourning    for   three    full  weeks,^ 


'  Lit.  "great  warfare."  It  will  be  seen  that  the  A.V.  and  R.V. 
and  other  renderings  vary  widely  from  this  ;  but  nothing  very  impor- 
tant depends  on  the  variations.  Instead  of  taking  the  verbs  as 
imperatives  addressed  to  the  reader,  Hitzig  renders,  "  He  heeded  the 
word,  and  gave  heed  to  the  vision," 

-  Lit.  "  weeks  of  days  "  (Gen.  xli.  I ;  Deut.  xxi.  13  :  "years  of  days  "). 


294  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

during  which  he  ate  no  dainty  bread/  nor  flesh,  nor 
wine,  nor  did  he  anoint  himself  with  oil.^  But  in  the 
Passover  month  of  Abib  or  Nisan,  the  first  month  of 
the  year,  and  on  the  twenty-fourth  day  of  that  month,^ 
he  was  seated  on  the  bank  of  the  great  river,  Hiddekel 
or  Tigris,*  when,  lifting  up  his  eyes,  he  saw  a  certain 
man  clothed  in  fine  linen  Hke  a  Jewish  priest,  and  his 
loins  girded  with  gold  of  Uphaz.^  His  body  was  like 
chrysolite,^  his  face  flashed  like  lightning,  his  eyes 
were  like  torches  of  fire,  his  arms  and  feet  gleamed 
like  polished  brass,^  and  the  sound  of  his  words  was 
as  the  sound  of  a  deep  murmur.^  Daniel  had  com- 
panions with  him ;  ^  they  did  not  see  the  \dsion,  but 
some  supernatural  terror  fell  upon  them,  and  they  fled 
to  hide  themselves.^^ 

At  this  great  spectacle  his  strength  departed,   and 

'  "Bread  of  desires"  is  the  opposite  of  "bread  of  affliction"  in 
Devit.  xvi.  3.     Comp.  Gen.  xxvii.  25  ;  Isa.  xxii.  13,  etc. 

2  Comp.  Amos  vi.  6 ;  Ruth  iii.  3  ;  2  Sam.  xii.  20,  xiv.  2. 

3  He  fasted  from  Abib  3  to  24.  The  festival  of  the  New  Moon 
might  prevent  him  from  fasting  on  Abib  I,  2. 

*  Hiddekel  ("the  rushing")  occurs  only  in  Gen.  ii.  14.  It  is  the 
Assyrian  idiglat. 

5  For  the  girdle  see  Ezek,  xxiii.  15.  Ewald  (with  the  Vulg.,  Chald., 
and  Syriac)  regards  Uphaz  as  a  clerical  error  for  Ophir  (Psalm  xlv.  9). 
LXX.,  Mw^di"  (Jer.  x.  9,  where  alone  it  occurs).  The  LXX.  omit  it 
here.     Vulg.,  Auro  obriso. 

^  Heb.,  eben  tarshish  (Exod.  xxviii.  2) ;  Vulg.,  crysolithus  ;  R.V. 
and  A.V.,  "  beryl "  (Ezek.  i.  16).     Comp.  Skr.,  tarisha,  "  the  sea." 

'  Theodot.,  ThaK^X-n;  LXX.,  olirSSes  (Rev.  i.  15)— lit.  "foot-hold"; 
Vulg.,  qiice  deorsum  sunt  usque  ad  pedes. 

^  This  description  of  the  vision  follows  Ezek.  i.  16-24,  ix.  2,  and  is 
followed  in  Rev.  i.  13-15.  The  "deep  murmur"  is  referred  to  the 
sound  of  the  sea  by  St.  John ;  A.V.,  "  the  voice  of  a  multitude  "  ;  LXX., 
OSpv^os.     Comp.  Isa.  xiii.  4  ;  Ezek.  xliii.  2. 

^  Rashi  guesses  that  they  were  Haggai,  Zechariah,  and  Malachi. 

'"  Comp.  Acts  ix.  7,  xxii.  11. 


INTRODUCTION  TO   THE  CONCLUDING   VISION   295 

his  brightness  was  changed  to  corruption ;  ^  and  when 
the  vision  spoke  he  fell  to  the  earth  face  downwards. 
A  hand  touched  him,  and  partly  raised  him  to  the 
trembling  support  of  his  knees  and  the  palms  of  his 
hands,^  and  a  voice  said  to  him,  ''Daniel,  thou  greatly 
beloved,^  stand  upright,  and  attend  ;  for  I  am  sent  to 
thee."  The  seer  was  still  trembling ;  but  the  voice 
bade  him  fear  not,  for  his  prayer  had  been  heard, 
and  for  that  reason  this  message  had  been  sent  to  him. 
Gabriel's  coming  had,  however,  been  delayed  for  three 
weeks,  by  his  having  to  withstand  for  twenty  days  the 
prince  of  the  kingdom  of  Persia.*  The  necessity  of 
continuing  the  struggle  was  only  removed  by  the 
arrival  of  Michael,  one  of  the  chief  princes,^  to  help 
him,  so  that  Gabriel  was  no  longer  needed  ®  to  resist 
the  kings  of  Persia.^  The  vision  was  for  many  days,^ 
and  he  had  come  to  enable  Daniel  to  understand  it. 

Once  more  Daniel  was  terrified,  remained  silent, 
and  fixed  his  eyes  on  the  ground,  until  one  like  the 
sons  of  men  touched  his  lips,  and  then  he  spoke  to 
apologise  for  his  timidity  and  faintheartedness. 


^  Comp.  Hab.  iii.  16;  Dan.  viii.  18. 

"^  Lit.  "  shook  "  or  "  caused  me  to  tremble  upon  my  knees  and  the 
palms  of  my  hand." 

^  X.  II.  LXX.,  dvOpioTTos  eXeeiubs  el;  Tert.,  De  Jej'im.,  7,  "homo  es 
miserabilis"  (sc,  "  jejunando  "). 

*  The  protecting  genius  of  Persia  (Isa.  xxiv.  21;  Psalm  Ixxxii.; 
Ecclus.  xvii,  17). 

^  Michael,  "  who  is  like  God  "  (Jude  9  ;  Rev.  xii.  7). 

*  Heb.,  nothartt.  "  I  came  off  victorious,"  or  "  obtained  the  pre- 
cedence "  (Luther,  Gesenius,  etc.)  ;  "  I  was  delayed  "  (Hitzig)  ;  "  I  was 
superfluous"  (Ewald) ;  "Was  left  over"  (Zockler)  ;  "I  remained" 
(A.V.) ;  "  "Was  not  needed  "  (R.V.  marg.).  The  LXX.  and  Theodoret 
seem  to  follow  another  text. 

^  LXX,,  "  with  the  army  of  the  king  of  the  Persians." 

*  Again  the  text  and  rendering  are  uqcertain. 


296  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

A  third  time  the  vision  touched,  strengthened,  blessed 
him,  and  bade  him  be  strong.  '*  Knowest  thou,"  the 
angel  asked,  ''  why  I  am  come  to  thee  ?  I  must 
return  to  fight  against  the  Prince  of  Persia,  and  while 
I  am  gone  the  Prince  of  Greece  [Javan]  will  come.  I 
will,  however,  tell  thee  what  is  announced  in  the  writing 
of  truth,  the  book  of  the  decrees  of  heaven,  though 
there  is  no  one  to  help  me  against  these  hostile  princes 
of  Persia  and  Javan,  except  Michael  your  prince." 

The  difficulties  of  the  chapter  are,  as  we  have  said, 
of  a  kind  that  the  expositor  cannot  easily  remove.  I 
have  given  what  appears  to  be  the  general  sense.  The 
questions  which  the  vision  raises  bear  on  matters  of 
angelology,  as  to  which  all  is  purposely  left  vague  and 
indeterminate,  or  which  lie  in  a  sphere  wholly  beyond 
our  cognisance. 

It  may  first  be  asked  whether  the  splendid  angel 
of  the  opening  vision  is  also  the  being  in  the  similitude 
of  a  man  who  thrice  touches,  encourages,  and  strengthens 
Daniel.  It  is  perhaps  simplest  to  suppose  that  this  is 
the  case,^  and  that  the  Great  Prince  tones  down  his 
overpowering  glory  to  more  familiar  human  semblance 
in  order  to  dispel  the  terrors  of  the  seer. 

The  general  conception  of  the  archangels  as  princes 
of  the  nations,  and  as  contending  with  each  other, 
belongs  to  the  later  developments  of  Hebrew  opinion  on 
such  subjects.^    Some  have  supposed  that  the  "  princes  " 


'  So  Hitzig  and  Ewald.  The  view  that  they  are  distinct  persons 
is  taken  by  ZOckler,  Von  Lengerke,  etc.  Other  guesses  are  that  the 
"man  clothed  in  Hnen  "  is  the  angel  who  called  Gabriel  (viii.  i6);  or 
Michael ;  or  "  the  angel  of  the  Covenant  "  (Vitringa)  ;  or  Christ ;  or 
"he  who  letteth"  (6  nar^x^^i  2  Thess.  ii,  7),  whom  Zockler  takes  to 
be  "  the  good  principle  of  the  world-power," 

2  Thus  in  the  LXX,  (Deut.  xxxii.  8)  we  read  of  angels  of  the  nations, 


INTRODUCTION   TO   THE   CONCLUDING    VISION   297 

of  Persia  and  Javan  to  whom  Gabriel  and  Michael 
are  opposed  are,  not  good  angels,  but  demonic  powers, 
— '^the  world-rulers  of  this  darkness" — subordinate  to 
the  evil  spirit  whom  St.  Paul  does  not  hesitate  to 
call  "  the  god  of  this  world,"  and  ''  the  prince  of  the 
powers  of  the  air."  This  is  how  they  account  for  this 
''  war  in  heaven,"  so  that  '*  the  dragon  and  his  angels  " 
fight  against  '*  Michael  and  his  angels."  Be  that  as 
it  may,  this  mode  of  presenting  the  guardians  of  the 
destinies  of  nations  is  one  respecting  which  we  have 
no  further  gleams  of  revelation  to  help  us. 

Ewald  regards  the  two  last  verses  of  the  chapter  as 
a  sort  of  soliloquy  of  the  angel  Gabriel  with  himself 
He  is  pressed  for  time.  His  coming  has  already  been 
delayed  by  the  opposition  of  the  guardian-power  of 
the  destinies  of  Persia.  If  Michael,  the  great  arch- 
angel of  the  Hebrews,  had  not  come  to  his  aid,  and  (so 
to  speak)  for  a  time  relieved  guard,  he  would  have 
been  unable  to  come.  But  even  the  respite  leaves  him 
anxious.  He  seems  to  feel  it  almost  necessary  that  he 
should  at  once  return  to  contend  against  the  Prince  of 
Persia,  and  against  a  new  adversary,  the  Prince  of 
Javan,  who  is  on  his  way  to  do  mischief  Yet  on  the 
whole  he  will  stay  and  enlighten  Daniel  before  he  takes 
his  flight,  although  there  is  no  one  but  Michael  who 
aids  him  against  these  menacing  princes.  It  is  difficult 
to  know  whether  this  is  meant  to  be  ideal  or  real — 
whether  it  represents  a  struggle  of  angels  against 
demons,  or  is  merely  meant  for  a  sort  of  parable  which 
represents  the  to-and-fro  conflicting  impulses  which 
sway  the  destinies  of  earthly  kingdoms.     In  any  case 


See  too  Isa.  xlvi.  2  ;  Jer.  xlvi.  25.    Comp.  Baruch  iv.  7 ;  Ecclus.  xvii,  17 ; 
Frankel,  Vorstudien,  p.  66. 


298  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


the  representation  is  too  unique  and  too  remote  from 
earth  to  enable  us  to  understand  its  spiritual  meaning, 
beyond  the  bare  indication  that  God  sitteth  above  the 
water-floods  and  God  remaineth  a  king  for  ever.  It  is 
another  way  of  showing  us  that  the  heathen  rage,  and 
the  people  imagine  a  vain  thing  ;  that  the  kings  of  the 
earth  set  themselves  and  the  rulers  take  counsel  to- 
gether ;  but  that  they  can  only  accomplish  what  God's 
hand  and  God's  counsel  have  predetermined  to  be  done  ; 
and  that  when  they  attempt  to  overthrow  the  destinies 
which  God  has  foreordained,  ''  He  that  sitteth  in  the 
heavens  shall  laugh  them  to  scorn,  the  Lord  shall  have 
them  in  derision."  These,  apart  from  all  complications 
or  developments  of  angelology  or  demonology,  are  the 
continuous  lesson  of  the  Word  of  God,  and  are  con- 
firmed by  all  that  we  decipher  of  His  providence  in 
His  ways  of  dealing  with  nations  and  with  men. 


CHAPTER    V 

.  AN  ENIGMATIC  PROPHECY  PASSING  INTO  DETAILS 
OF  THE  REIGN  OF  ANTIOCHUS  EPIPHANES 

"  Pone    haec   dici   de   Antiocho,  quid  nocet  religioni    nostrae  ? " — 
HiERON.  ed.  Vallars,  v.  722. 

IF  this  chapter  were  indeed  the  utterance  of  a  prophet 
in  the  Babylonian  Exile,  nearly  four  hundred  years 
before  the  events — events  of  which  many  are  of  small 
comparative  importance  in  the  world's  history — which 
are  here  so  enigmatically  and  yet  so  minutely  depicted, 
the  revelation  would  be  the  most  unique  and  per- 
plexing in  the  whole  Scriptures.  It  would  represent  a 
sudden  and  total  departure  from  every  method  of  God's 
providence  and  of  God's  manifestation  of  His  will  to  the 
minds  of  the  prophets.  It  would  stand  absolutely  and 
abnormally  alone  as  an  abandonment  of  the  limitations 
of  all  else  which  has  ever  been  foretold.  And  it  would 
then  be  still  more  surprising  that  such  a  reversal  of  the 
entire  economy  of  prophec}^  should  not  only  be  so 
widely  separated  in  tone  from  the  high  moral  and 
spiritual  lessons  which  it  was  the  special  glory  of 
prophecy  to  inculcate,  but  should  come  to  us  entirely 
devoid  of  those  decisive  credentials  which  could  alone 
suffice  to  command  our  conviction  of  its  genuineness 
and  authenticity.  ''  We  find  in  this  chapter,"  says  Mr. 
Bevan,  *'a  complete  survey  of  the  history  from  the 
beginning  of  the  Persian  period  down  to  the  time  of 

299 


300  THE  BOOK   OF  DANIEL 

the  author.  Here,  even  more  than  in  the  earlier  vision, 
we  are  able  to  perceive  how  the  account  gradually 
becomes  more  definite  as  it  approaches  the  latter  part 
of  the  reign  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and  how  it  then 
passes  suddenly  from  the  domain  of  historical  facts  to 
that  of  ideal  expectations."^  In  recent  days,  when 
the  force  of  truth  has  compelled  so  many  earnest 
and  honest  thinkers  to  the  acceptance  of  historic 
and  literary  criticism,  the  few  scholars  who  are  still 
able  to  maintain  the  traditional  views  about  the  Book 
of  Daniel  find  themselves  driven,  like  Zockler  and 
others,  to  admit  that  even  if  the  Book  of  Daniel  as  a 
whole  can  be  regarded  as  the  production  of  the  exiled 
seer  five  and  a  half  centuries  before  Christ,  yet  in  this 
chapter  at  any  rate  there  must  be  large  interpolations.'^ 

There  is  here  an  unfortunate  division  of  the  chapters. 
The  first  verse  of  chap.  xi.  clearly  belongs  to  the  last 
verses  of  chap.  x.  It  seems  to  furnish  the  reason 
why  Gabriel  could  rely  on  the  help  of  Michael,  and 
therefore  may  delay  for  a  few  moments  his  return 
to  the  scene  of  conflict  with  the  Prince  of  Persia 
and  the  coming  King  of  Javan.  Michael  will  for  that 
brief  period  undertake  the  sole  responsibihty  of  main- 
taining the  struggle,  because  Gabriel  has  put  him 
under  a  direct  obligation  by  special  assistance  which  he 
rendered  to  him  only  a  little  while  previously  in  the 
first  year  of  the  Median  Darius.^  Now,  therefore,  Gabriel, 
though  in  haste,  will  announce  to  Daniel  the  truth. 

The  announcement  occupies  five  sections. 

First   Section  (xi.-  2-9). — Events  from  the  rise  of 

'  Daniel,  p.  162. 

^  On   this  chapter  see  Smend,   Zeitschr.  fi'tr  Altfest   Wissenschaft, 
V.  241. 

2  Ewald,  Prophets,  v.  293  (E.  Tr.). 


FIRST  SECTION 


301 


Alexander  the  Great  (b.c  336)  to  the  death  of  Seleucus 
Nicator  (b.c.  280).  There  are  to  be  three  kings  of 
Persia  after  Cyrus  (who  is  then  reigning),  of  whom  the 
third  is  to  be  the  richest ;  ^  and  **  when  he  is  waxed 
strong  through  his  riches,  he  shall  stir  up  the  alP 
against  the  realm  of  Javan." 

There  were  of  course  many  more  than  four  kings  of 
Persia  ^ :  viz. — 


B.C. 

Cyrus 536 

Cambyses 

. 

529 

Pseudo-Smerdis 

. 

522 

Darius  Hystaspis     . 

. 

521 

Xerxes  I. 

485 

Artaxerxes  I.  (Longimanus) 

. 

464 

Xerxes  II. 

. 

425 

Sogdianus 

425 

Darius  Nothus 

424 

Artaxerxes  II.  (Mnemon) 

•      405 

Artaxerxes  III. 

. 

•    359 

Darius  Codomannus 

. 

336 

But  probably  the  writer  had  no  historic  sources  to 
which  to  refer,  and  only  four  Persian  kings  are  pro- 
minent in  Scripture — Cyrus,  Darius,  Xerxes,  and 
Artaxerxes.  Darius  Codomannus  is  indeed  mentioned 
in  Neh.  xii.  22,  but  might  have  easily  been  over- 
looked, and  even  confounded  with  another  Darius  in 
uncritical  and  unhistorical  times.  The  rich  fourth 
king  who  ''  stirs  up  the  all  against  the  realm  of  Grecia" 


'  Doubtless  the  three  mentioned  in  Ezra  iv.  5-7 :  Ahasuerus 
(Xerxes),  Artaxerxes,  and  Darius. 

2  Heb.,  Hakkol— lit.  "  the  all."  There  were  probably  Jews  in  his 
rmy  (Jos.  c.  Ap.,  I.  22  :  comp.  Herod.,  vii.  89). 

»  Zeckler  met  the  difficulty  by  calUng  the  number  four  "  symbolic," 
a  method  as  easy  as  it  is  profoundly  unsatisfactory. 


302  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


might  be  meant  for  Artaxerxes  I.,  but  more  probably 
refers  to  Xerxes  (Achashverosh,  or  Ahasuerus),  and  his 
immense  and  ostentatious  invasion  of  Greece  (b.c.  480). 
His  enormous  wealth  is  dwelt  upon  by  Herodotus.^ 

Ver.  3  (B.C.  336-323). — Then  shall  rise  a  mighty 
king  (Alexander  the  Great),  and  shall  rule  with  great 
dominion,  and  do  according  to  his  will.  **  Fortunam 
solus  omnium  mortalium  in  potestate  habuit,"  says  his 
historian,  Quintus  Curtius.^ 

Ver.  4  (e.g.  323).— But  when  he  is  at  the  apparent 
zenith  of  his  strength  his  kingdom  shall  be  broken, 
and  shall  not  descend  to  any  of  his  posterity,^  but 
(b.c.  323-301)  shall  be  for  others,  and  shall  ultimately 
(after  the  Battle  of  Ipsus,  b.c.  301)  be  divided  towards 
the  four  winds  of  heaven,  into  the  kingdoms  of 
Cassander  (Greece  and  Macedonia),  Ptolemy  (Egypt, 
Coele-Syria,  and  Palestine),  Lysimachus  (Asia  Minor), 
and  Seleucus  (Upper  Asia). 

Ver.  5. — Of  these  four  kingdoms  and  their  kings 
the  vision  is  only  concerned  with  two — the  kings  of 
the  South  ^  (/>.,  the  Lagidse,  or  Egyptian  Ptolemies, 
who  sprang  from  Ptolemy  Lagos),  and  the  kings  of 
the  North  (?>.,  the  Antiochian  Seleucidae).  They  alone 
are  singled  out  because  the  Holy  Land  became  a 
sphere  of  contentions  between  these  rival  dynasties.^ 

'  Herod,,  Hi.  96,  iv.  27-29. 

2  Q.  Curt.,  X.  V.  35. 

'  See  Grote,  xii.  133.  Alexander  had  a  natural  son,  Herakles,  and 
a  posthumous  son,  Alexander,  by  Roxana.  Both  were  murdered— 
the  former  by  Polysperchon.  See  Diod.  Sic,  xix.  105,  xx.  28; 
Pausan.,  ix.  7;  Justin,  xv.  2;  Appian,  Syr,  c.  51. 

*  The  King  of  the  Negeb  (comp.  Isa.  xxx.  6,  7).  LXX.,  Egypt. 
Ptolemy  assumed  the  crown  about  b.c.  304. 

*  See  Stade,  Gesch.,  ii.  276.  Seleucus  Nicator  was  deemed  so  im- 
portant as  to  give  his  name  to  the  Seleucid  sera  (i  Mace.  i.  10, 
^ri  fiacriXsias  'BXX>>wv). 


FIRST  SECTION  303 


B.C.  306. — The  King  of  the  South  (Ptolemy  Soter, 
son  of  Lagos)  shall  be  strong,  and  shall  ultimately 
assume  the  title  of  Ptolemy  I.,  King  of  Egypt. 

But  one  of  his  princes  or  generals  (Seleucus  Nicator) 
shall  be  stronger/  and,  asserting  his  independence, 
shall  establish  a  great  dominion  over  Northern  Syria 
and  Babylonia. 

Ver.  6  (b.c.  250). — The  vision  then  passes  over  the 
reign  of  Antiochus  II.  (Soter),  and  proceeds  to  say 
that  "  at  the  end  of  years  "  (i.e.,  some  half-century  later, 
B.C.  250)  the  kings  of  the  North  and  South  should  form 
a  matrimonial  alliance.  The  daughter  of  the  King  of 
the  South — the  Egyptian  Princess  Berenice,  daughter 
of  Ptolem}^  II.  (Philadelphus),  should  come  to  the  King 
of  the  North  (Antiochus  Theos)  to  make  an  agree- 
ment. This  agreement  (marg.,  *'  equitable  conditions  ") 
was  that  Antiochus  Theos  should  divorce  his  wife 
and  half-sister  Laodice,  and  disinherit  her  children, 
and  bequeath  the  throne  to  any  future  child  of  Berenice, 
who  would  thus  unite  the  empires  of  the  Ptolemies 
and  the  Seleucidse.^  Berenice  took  with  her  so  vast 
a  dowry  that  she  was  called  **  the  dowry-bringer " 
(<^e/)i/o(^0j009).^  Antiochus  himself  accompanied  her  as 
far  as  Pelusium  (b.c.  247).  But  the  compact  ended  in 
nothing  but  calamity.  For,  two  years  after,  Ptolemy  II. 
died,  leaving  an  infant  child  by  Berenice.     But  Berenice 


^  Diod.  Sic,  xix.  55-58  ;  Appian,  Syr.,  c.  52.  He  ruled  from  Phrygia 
to  the  Indus,  and  was  the  most  powerful  of  the  Diadochi,  The  word 
one  is  not  expressed  in  the  Hebrew  :  "  but  as  for  one  of  his  captains.' 
There  may  be  some  corruption  of  the  text.  Seleucus  can  scarcely 
be  regarded  as  a  vassal  of  Ptolemy,  but  of  Alexander. 

2  Appian,  Syr.,  c.  55  ;  Polyaenus,  viii.  50 ;  Justin,  xxvii.  i.  See  Herz- 
berg,  Gesch.  v.  Hellas  u.  Rom.,  i.  576.     Dates  are  not  certain, 
er.,  ad  loc.  (Dan.  xi.  6). 


304  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

did  ^^not  retain  the  strength  of  her  armj^^  since  the  military 
force  which  accompanied  her  proved  powerless  for  her 
protection  ;  nor  did  Ptolemy  II.  abide,  nor  any  sup- 
port which  he  could  render.  On  the  contrary,  there  was 
overwhelming  disaster.  Berenice's  escort,  her  father, 
her  husband,  all  perished,  and  she  herself  and  her  infant 
child  were  murdered  by  her  rival,  Laodice  (b.c.  246), 
in  the  sanctuary  of  Daphne,  whither  she  had  fled  for 
refuge. 

Ver.  7  (b.c.  285-247). — But  the  murder  of  Berenice 
shall  be  well  avenged.  For  '*  out  of  a  shoot  from  her 
roots"  stood  up  one  in  his  office,  even  her  brother 
Ptolemy  III.  (Euergetes),  who,  unlike  the  effeminate 
Ptolemy  II.,  did  not  entrust  his  wars  to  his  generals, 
but  came  himself  to  his  army.  He  shall  completely 
conquer  the  King  of  the  North  (Seleucus  II.,  Kallinikos, 
son  of  Antiochus  Theos  and  Laodice),  shall  seize  his 
fortress  (Seleucia,  the  port  of  Antioch).^ 

Ver.  8  (b.c.  247). — In*this  campaign  Ptolemy  Euergetes, 
who  earned  the  title  of  '*  Benefactor  "  by  this  vigorous 
invasion,  shall  not  only  win  immense  booty — four 
thousand  talents  of  gold  and  many  jewels,  and  forty 
thousand  talents  of  silver — but  shall  also  carry  back 
with  him  to  Egypt  the  two  thousand  five  hundred 
molten  images,^  and  idolatrous  vessels,  which,  two 
hundred  and  eighty  years  before  (b.c.  527),  Cambyses 
had  carried  away  from  Egypt.* 

'  The  rendering  is  much  disputed,  and  some  versions,  punctuating 
differently,  have,  "  his  seed  [?>.,  his  daughter]  shall  not  stand."  Every 
clause  of  the  passage  has  received  varying  interpretations. 

2  Polyb.,  V.  58. 

^  Heb.,  nastktm;  LXX.,  tcl  x^^'evrd ;  Vulg.,  sculptilia. 

*  Herodotus  (iii.  47)  says  that  he  ordered  the  images  to  be  burnt. 
On  the  Marmor  Adulitanum,  Ptolemy  Euergetes  boasted  that  he 
had  united  Mesopotamia,  Babylonia,  Persia,  Susiana,  Media,  and  all 


SECOND  SECTION  305 

After  this  success  he  will,  for  some  years,  refrain 
from  attacking  the  Seleucid  kings. ^ 

Ver.  9  (B.C.  240). — Seleucus  Kallinikos  makes  an 
attempt  to  avenge  the  shame  and  loss  of  the  invasion 
of  Syria  by  invading  Egypt,  but  he  returns  to  his 
own  land  totally  foiled  and  defeated,  for  his  fleet  was 
destroyed  by  a  storm.^ 

Second  Section  (vv.  10-19). — Events  from  the  death 
of  Ptolemy  Euergetes  (b.c.  247)  to  the  death  of  Anti- 
ochus  III.  (the  Great,  b.c.  175).  In  the  following 
verses,  as  Behrmann  observes,  there  is  a  sort  of  dance 
of  shadows,  only  fully  intelligible  to  the  initiated. 

Ver.  10. — The  sons  of  Seleucus  KaUinikos  were 
Seleucus  III.  (Keraunos,  b.c  227-224)  and  Antiochus 
the  Great  (b.c.  224-187).  Keraunos  only  reigned  two 
years,  and  in  b.c.  224  his  brother  Antiochus  III. 
succeeded  him.  Both  kings  assembled  immense  forces 
to  avenge  the  insult  of  the  Egyptian  invasion,  the 
defeat  of  their  father,  and  the  retention  of  their  port 
and  fortress  of  Seleucia.  It  was  only  sixteeen  miles 
from  Antioch,  and  being  still  garrisoned  by  Egyp- 
tians, constituted  a  standing  danger  and  insult  to  their 
capital  city. 

Ver.  1 1 . — After  twenty-seven  years  the  port  of 
Seleucia  is  wrested  from  the  Egyptians  by  Antiochus 
the  Great,  and  he  so  completely  reverses   the  former 

countries  as  far  as  Bactria  under  his  rule.  The  inscription  was  seen 
at  Adules  by  Cosmas  Indicopleustes,  and  recorded  by  him  (Wolf  u. 
Buttmann,  Museum,  u.  162). 

*  R.V.  marg.,  "  He  shall  continue  more  years  than  the  King  of 
the  North."  Ptolemy  Euergetes  died  b.c.  247  ;  Seleucus  Kallinikos, 
B.C.  225.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  in  almost  every  clause  the 
readings,  renderings,  and  interpolations  vary.  I  give  what  seem  to 
be  the  best  attested  and  the  most  probable. 

2  Justin,  xxvii.  2. 

20 


3o6  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

successes  of  the  King  of  the  South  as  to  conquer  Syria 
as  far  as  Gaza. 

Ver.  12  (B.C.  217). — But  at  last  the  young  Egyptian 
King,  Ptolemy  IV.  (Philopator),  is  roused  from  his 
dissipation  and  effeminacy,  advances  to  Raphia  (south- 
west of  Gaza)  with  a  great  army  of  twenty  thousand 
foot,  five  thousand  horse,  and  seventy-three  elephants, 
and  there,  to  his  own  immense  self-exaltation,  he  inflicts 
a  severe  defeat  on  Antiochus,  and  *' casts  down  tens  of 
thousands^^  Yet  the  victory  is  illusive,  although  it 
enables  Ptolemy  to  annex  Palestine  to  Egypt.  For 
Ptolemy  ^^  shall  not  show  himself  strong^^^  but  shall,  by 
his  supineness,  and  by  making  a  speedy  peace,  throw 
away  all  the  fruits  of  his  victory,  while  he  returns 
to  his  past  dissipation  (b.c.  217-204).^ 

Ver.  13. — Twelve  years  later  (b.c.  205)  Ptolemy 
Philopator  died,  leaving  an  infant  son,  Ptolemy  Epi- 
phanes.  Antiochus,  smarting  from  his  defeat  at  Raphia, 
again  assembled  an  army  which  was  still  greater  than 
before  (b.c.  203),  and  much  war-material.  In  the 
intervening  years  he  had  won  great  victories  in  the 
East  as  far  as  India. 

Ver.  14. — Antiochus  shall  be  aided  by  the  fact  that 
many — including  his  ally  Philip,  King  of  Macedon, 
and  various  rebel-subjects  of  Ptolemy  Epiphanes— 
stood  up  against  the  King  of  Egypt  and  wrested  Phoe- 
nicia and  Southern  Syria  from  him.  The  Syrians  were 
further  strengthened  by  the  assistance  of  the  "  children 
of  the  violent "  among  the  Jews,  "  who  shall  lift  them- 

'  See  3  Mace.  i.  2-8;  Jos.,  B.J.,  IV.  xi.  5.  The  Seleucid  army  lost 
ten  thousand  foot,  three  hundred  horse,  five  elephants,  and  more  than 
four  thousand  prisoners  (Polyb.,  v,  86). 

2  Justin  says  (xxx.  l) :  "Spoliasset  regem  Antiochum  si  fortunam 
virtute  juvisset." 


ANTIOCHUS   THE  GREAT 


307 


selves  up  to  fulfil  the  vision  of  the  oracle;^  but  they  shall 
fall."  We  read  in  Josephus  that  many  of  the  Jews 
helped  Antiochus  ;  ^  but  the  allusion  to  '*  the  vision  "  is 
entirely  obscure.  Ewald  supposes  a  reference  to  some 
prophecy  no  longer  extant.  Dr.  Joel  thinks  that  the 
Hellenising  Jews  may  have  referred  to  Isa.  xix.  in  favour 
of  the  plans  of  Antiochus  against  Egypt. 

Vv.  15,  16. — But  however  much  any  of  the  Jews 
may  have  helped  Antiochus  under  the  hope  of  ulti- 
mately regaining  their  independence,  their  hopes  were 
frustrated.  The  Syrian  King  came,  besieged,  and  took 
a  well-fenced  city — perhaps  an  allusion  to  the  fact  that 
he  wrested  Sidon  from  the  Egyptians.  After  his  great 
victory  over  the  Egyptian  general  Scopas  at  Mount 
Panium  (b.c.  198),  the  routed  Egyptian  forces,  to  the 
number  of  ten  thousand,  flung  themselves  into  that 
city.^  This  campaign  ruined  the  interests  of  Egypt  in 
Palestine,  ''  the  glorious  land."*  Palestine  now  passed 
to  Antiochus,  who  took  possession  '^  with  destruction  in 
his  handy 

Ver.  17  (B.C.  198-195).— After  this  there  shall  again 
be  an  attempt  at  "  equitable  negotiations  " ;  by  which, 
however,  Antiochus  hoped  to  get  final  possession  of 
Egypt  and  destroy  it.  He  arranged  a  marriage  between 
^'  a  daughter  of  women  " — his  daughter  Cleopatra — and 
Ptolemy  Epiphanes.  But  this  attempt  also  entirely 
failed. 

Ver.  18  (b.c.  190). — Antiochus  therefore  ''  sets  his  face 


*  Chdzon,  "the  vision."     Gratz  renders  it,  "to  cause  the  Law  to 
totter  " ;  but  this  cannot  be  right. 

"^  E.g.,  Joseph,  and  his  son  Hyrcanus. 

^  Polyb.,  xxviii.  i;  Liv.,  xxxiii.   19;   Jos.,  AntL,  XII.  iii.  4.     See 
St.  Jerome,  ad  he. 

*  Vulg.,  terra  inclyta  ;  but  in  viii.  9,  fortitudo. 


3o8  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

in  another  direction^^  and  tries  to  conquer  the  islands 
and  coasts  of  Asia  Minor.  But  a  captain — the  Roman 
general,  Lucius  Cornelius  Scipio  Asiaticus — puts  an 
end  to  the  insolent  scorn  with  which  he  had  spoken  of 
the  Romans,  and  pays  him  back  with  equal  scorn,^ 
utterly  defeating  him  in  the  great  Battle  of  Magnesia 
(b.c.  190),  and  forcing  him  to  ignominious  terms. 

Ver.  19  (b.c.  175). — Antiochus  next  turns  his  atten- 
tion {^^  sets  his  face  ")  to  strengthen  the  fortresses  of  his 
own  land  in  the  east  and  west ;  but  making  an  attempt 
to  recruit  his  dissipated  wealth  by  the  plunder  of  the 
Temple  of  Belus  in  Elymais,  '*  stumbles  and  falls  ^  and  is 
not  found y 

Third  Section  (vv.  20-27). — Events  under  Seleucus 
Philopator  down  to  the  first  attempts  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes  against  Egypt  (e.g.   170). 

Ver.  20. — Seleucus  Philopator  (e.g.  187-176)  had  a 
character  the  reverse  of  his  father's.  He  was  no  rest- 
less seeker  for  glory,  but  desired  wealth  and  quietness.^ 
Among  the  Jews,  however,  he  had  a  very  evil  repu- 
tation, for  he  sent  an  exactor — a  mere  tax-collector, 
Heliodorus — '*  to  pass  through  the  glory  of  the  kingdom  "  ^ 
He  only  reigned  twelve  years,  and  then  was  ''  broken  " 
— i.e.,  murdered  by  Heliodorus,  neither  in  anger  nor  in 
battle,  but  by  poison  administered  by  this  "  tax-collec- 
tor." The  versions  all  vary,  but  I  feel  little  doubt  that 
Dr.  Joel  is  right  when  he  sees  in  the  curious  phrase 
nogesh  heder  malkooth,  ''one  that  shall  cause  a  raiser 

'  In  the  choice  of  the  Hebrew  words  qats'in  cherpatho  lo.  Dr.  Joel 
suspects  a  sort  of  anagram  of  Cornehus  Scipio,  like  the  airo  fxeXiros 
for  Ptolemy,  and  the  5,'ov  "Hpos  for  Arsione  in  Lycophron  ;  but  the  real 
meaning  and  rendering  of  the  verse  are  highly  uncertain. 

^  Liv.,  xii.  19:  "  Otiosum,  nullisque  admodum  rebus  gestis  nobili- 
tatum." 

^  2  Mace.  iii.  7  ff-     The  reading  and  rendering  are  very  uncertain. 


ANTIOCHUS  EPIPHANES  309 

of  taxes  to  pass  over  the  kingdom  " — of  which  neither 
Theodotion  nor  the  Vulgate  can  make  anything — a 
cryptographic  allusion  to  the  name  Heliodorus ;  ^  and 
possibly  the  predicted  fate  may  (by  a  change  of  subject) 
also  refer  to  the  fact  that  Heliodorus  was  checked,  not 
by  force,  but  by  the  vision  in  the  Temple  (2  Mace. 
V.  18,  iii.  24-29).  We  find  from  2  Mace.  iv.  I  that 
Simeon,  the  governor  of  the  Temple,  charged  Onias 
with  a  trick  to  terrify  Heliodorus.  This  is  a  very 
probable  view  of  what  occurred.^ 

Ver.  21. — Seleucus  Philopator  died  b.c.  175  without 
an  heir.  This  made  room  for  a  contemptible  person, 
a  reprobate,  who  had  no  real  claim  to  royal  dignity,' 
being  only  a  younger  son  of  Antiochus  the  Great.  He 
came  by  surprise,  **  in  time  of  security ^^  and  obtained 
the  kingdom  by  flatteries.^ 

Ver.  22. — Yet  "M^  overflowing  wings  of  Egypt^^  (or 
''the  arms  of  a  flood")  '■^  were  swept  away  before  him 
and  broken  ;  yea,  and  even  a  covenanted  or  allied  prince y 
Some  explain  this  of  his  nephew  Ptolemy  Philometor, 
others  of  Onias  III.,  "the  prince  of  the  covenant" — 
i.e.y  the  princely  high  priest,  whom  Antiochus  displaced 
in  favour  of  his  brother,  the  apostate  Joshua,  who 
Graecised  his  name  into  Jason,  as  his  brother  Onias 
did  in  calHng  himself  Menelaus.^ 

Ver.  23. — This  mean  king  should  prosper  by  deceit 


^  Jo6l,  Notizen,  p.  16. 

^  See  Jost,  i.  no. 

'  Vulg.,  vilissimus  et  indigniis  decore  regio ;  R.V,,  "to  whom  they 
had  not  given  the  honour  of  a  kingdom  " ;  Ewald,  "  upon  him  shall 
not  be  set  the  splendour  of  a  kingdom."  Dr.  Jo6l  sees  in  nibzeh 
a  contemptuous  paronomasia  on  "Epiphanes"  {Notizen,  p.  17). 

*  Dan.  viii.  22;  2  Mace.  v.  25. 

"  Jos.,  Anti.,  XII.  V.  I. 


3IO  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

which  he  practised  on  all  connected  with  him;^  and 
though  at  first  he  had  but  few  adherents,  he  should 
creep  into  power. 

Ver.  24. — '*/«  time  of  security  shall  he  come,  even  upon 
the  fattest  places  of  the  province.'^  By  this  may  be 
meant  his  invasions  of  Galilee  and  Lower  Egypt.  Acting 
unlike  any  of  his  royal  predecessors,  he  shall  lavishly 
scatter  his  gains  and  his  booty  among  needy  followers,^ 
and  shall  plot  to  seize  Pelusium,  Naucratis,  Alexandria, 
and  other  strongholds  of  Egypt  for  a  time. 

Ver.  25.— After  this  (b.c.  171)  he  shall,  with  a  '^ gr&at 
army,^^  seriously  undertake  his  first  invasion  of  Egypt, 
and  shall  be  met  by  his  nephew  Ptolemy  Philometor 
with  another  immense  army.  In  spite  of  this,  the 
young  Egyptian  King  shall  fail  through  the  treachery 
of  his  own  courtiers.  He  shall  be  outwitted  and 
treacherously  undermined  by  his  uncle  Antiochus. 
Yes  I  even  while  his  army  is  fighting,  and  many  are 
being  slain,  the  very  men  who  '^  eat  of  his  dainties J^  even 
his  favourite  and  trusted  courtiers  Eulaeus  and  Lenaeus, 
will  be  devising  his  ruin,  and  his  army  shall  be  swept 
away. 

Vv.  26,  27  (B.C.  174).— The  Syrians  and  the  Egyptian 
King,  nephew  and  uncle,  shall  in  nominal  amity  sit  at 
one  banquet,  eating  from  one  table ;  ^  but  all  the  while 
they  will  be  distrustfully  plotting  against  each  other 
and  "  speaking  lies "  to  each  other.  Antiochus  will 
pretend  to  ally  himself  with  the  young  Philometor 
against  his  brother  Ptolemy  Euergetes   II. — generally 

'  Jerome,  amicitias  simulans. 

'  See  I  Mace.  iii.  30;  I  Mace.  i.  19;  Polyb.,  xxvii.  17;  Diod.  Sic, 
XXX.  22.     What  his  unkingly  stratag-erns  were  we  do  not  know. 

•■'  Liv.,  xliv.  19 :  "  Antiochus  per  houcstam  speciem  majoris  Ptolemaei 
reducendi  in  regnum,"  etc. 


FOURTH  SECTION  31 1 

known  by  his  derisive  nickname  as  Ptolemy  Physkon  ^ 
— whom  after  eleven  months  the  Alexandrians  had 
proclaimed  king.  But  all  these  plots  and  counter-plots 
should  be  of  none  effect,  for  the  end  was  not  yet. 

Fourth  Section  (vv.  28-35). — Events  between  the 
first  attack  of  Antiochus  on  Jerusalem  (b.c.  170)  and 
his  plunder  of  the  Temple  to  the  first  revolt  of  the 
Maccabees  (b.c.  167). 

Ver.  28  (e.g.  168). — Returning  from  Egypt  with  great 
plunder,  Antiochus  shall  set  himself  against  the  Holy 
Covenant.  He  put  down  the  usurping  high  priest  Jason, 
who,  with  much  slaughter,  had  driven  out  his  rival 
usurper  and  brother,  Menelaus.  He  massacred  many 
Jews,  and  returned  to  Antioch  enriched  with  golden 
vessels  seized  from  the  Temple.^ 

Ver.  29. — In  e.g.  168  Antiochus  again  invaded  Egypt, 
but  with  none  of  the  former  splendid  results.  For 
Ptolemy  Philometor  and  Physkon  had  joined  in  sending 
an  embassy  to  Rome  to  ask  for  help  and  protection. 
In  consequence  of  this,  ^^  ships  from  Kittini^''^ — namely, 
the  Roman  fleet — came  against  him,  bringing  the 
Roman  commissioner,  Gaius  Popilius  Laenas.  When 
Popilius  met  Antiochus,  the  king  put  out  his  hand  to 
embrace  him;  but  the  Roman  merely  held  out  his 
tablets,  and  bade  Antiochus  read  the  Roman  demand 
that  he  and  his  army  should  at  once  evacuate  Egypt. 
'^  I  will  consult  my  friends  on  the  subject,"  said 
Antiochus.      Popilius,   with   infinite    haughtiness   and 

^  Or  "  Paunch."  He  was  so  called  from  his  corpulence.  Comp.  the 
name  Mirabeau,  Tonneau, 

2  2  Mace.  V.  5-21 ;  i  Mace.  i.  20-24. 

^  The  LXX.  render  this  '^^ovai  'Fu/xaioi.  Comp=  Numb.  xxiv.  24 ; 
Jerome,  Tricres  et  Romani,  On  "Chittim"  (Gen.  x.  4)  see  Jos., 
Ant!.,  I.  vi.  I. 


312  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

audacity,  simply  drew  a  circle  in  the  sand  with  his 
vine-stick  round  the  spot  on  which  the  king  stood,  and 
said,  ''You  must  decide  before  you  step  out  of  that 
circle."  Antiochus  stood  amazed  and  humiliated;  but 
seeing  that  there  was  no  help  for  it,  promised  in  despair 
to  do  all  that  the  Romans  demanded/ 

Ver.  30. — Returning  from  Egypt  in  an  indignant  frame 
of  mind,  he  turned  his  exasperation  against  the  Jews 
and  the  Holy  Covenant,  especially  extending  his  ap- 
proval to  those  who  apostatised  from  it. 

Ver.  31. — Then  (b.c.  168)  shall  come  the  chmax  of 
horror.  Antiochus  shall  send  troops  to  the  Holy  Land, 
who  shall  desecrate  the  sanctuary  and  fortress  of  the 
Temple,  and  abolish  the  daily  sacrifice  (Kisleu  15),  and 
set  up  the  abomination  that  maketh  desolate.^ 

Ver.  32. — To  carry  out  these  ends  the  better,  and  with 
the  express  purpose  of  putting  an  end  to  the  Jewish 
religion,  he  shall  pervert  or  "  make  profane "  by 
flatteries  the  renegades  who  are  ready  to  apostatise 
from  the  faith  of  their  fathers.  But  there  shall  be 
a  faithful  remnant  who  will  bravely  resist  him  to  the 
uttermost.  **  The  people  who  know  their  God  will  be 
valiant,  and  do  great  deeds^ 

Ver.  33. — To  keep  alive  the  national  faith  ^^  wise 
teachers  of  the  people  shall  instruct  many,''^  and  will  draw 
upon  their  own  heads  the  fury  of  persecution,  so  that 
many  shall  fall  by  sword,  and  by  flame,  and  by  captivity, 
and  by  spoliation  for  many  days. 

'  Polyb.,  xxix.  ii;  Appian,  Syr.,  66;  Liv.,  xlv.  12;  Veil.  Paterc, 
i,  10.  According  to  Polybius  (xxxi.  5),  Epiphanes,  by  his  crafty  dis- 
simulation, afterwards  completely  hoodwinked  the  ambassador  Tiberius 
Gracchus. 

-  2  Mace.  vi.  2.  Our  best  available  historical  comments  on  this 
chapter  are  to  be  found  in  the  two  books  of  Maccabees. 


FIFTH  SECTION  313 


Ver.  34. — But  in  the  midst  of  this  fierce  onslaught 
of  cruelty  they  shall  be  ^^  holpen  with  a  little  helpy 
There  shall  arise  the  sect  of  the  Chasidimy  or  ''  the 
Pious,"  bound  together  by  Tugendbund  to  maintain  the 
Laws  which  Israel  received  from  Moses  of  old.^  These 
good  and  faithful  champions  of  a  righteous  cause  will 
indeed  be  weakened  by  the  false  adherence  of  waverers 
and  flatterers. 

Ver.  35. — To  purge  the  party  from  such  spies  and 
Laodiceans,  the  teachers,  like  the  aged  priest  Mattathias 
at  Modin,  and  the  aged  scribe  Eleazar,  will  have  to 
brave  even  martyrdom  itself  till  the  time  of  the  end. 

Fifth-Section (vv.  36-45,6.0. 147-164). — Events  from 
the  beginning  of  the  Maccabean  rising  to  the  death  of 
Antiochus  Epiphanes. 

Ver.  36. — Antiochus  will  grow  more  arbitrary,  more 
insolent,  more  blasphemous,  from  day  to  day,  calling 
himself '' God"  (Theos)  on  his  coins,  and  requiring  all 
his  subjects  to  be  of  his  religion,^  and  so  even  more 
kindling  against  himself  the  wrath  of  the  God  of  gods 
by  his  monstrous  utterances,  until  the  final  doom  has 
fallen. 

Ver.  37. — He  will,  in  fact,  make  himself  his  own  god, 
paying  no  regard  (by  comparison)  to  his  national  or 
local  god,  the  Olympian  Zeus,  nor  to  the  Syrian  deity, 
Tammuz-Adonis,  ''  the  desire  of  women."  ^ 

'   I  Mace.  ii.  42,  iii.  ii,  iv.  14,  vii.  13  ;  2  Mace.  xiv.  6, 
"^  Diod.  Sic.,  xxxi.  i;   i  Mace.  i.  43,     Polybius  (xxxi.  4)  says  "he 
committed  sacrilege  in  most  of  the  temples  "  (ra  TrAetora  rwv  lepQv). 

^  Jahn  (Heb.  Com.,  §  xcii.)  sees  in  the  words  *'  neither  shall  he 
regard  the  desire  of  women  "  an  allusion  to  his  exclusion  of  women 
from  the  festival  at  Daphne.  Some  explain  the  passage  by  his 
robbery  of  the  Temple  of  Artemis  or  Aphrodite  in  Elymais  (Polyb., 
xxxi.  II  ;  Appian,  Syr.,  66;  i  Mace.  vi.  1-4;  2  Mace.  ix.  2).  All  is 
vague  and  uncertain. 


314  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


"Tammuz  came  next  behind, 
Whose  yearly  wound  in  Lebanon  allured 
The  Syrian  damsels  to  lament  his  fate 
In  amorous  ditties  all  a  summer  day. 
While  smooth  Adonis  from  his  native  rock 
Ran  purple  to  the  sea — supposed  with  blood 
Of  Tammuz  yearly  wounded.     The  love  tale 
Infected  Zion's  daughters  with  like  heat." 

Ver.  38. — The  only  God  to  whom  he  shall  pay  marked 
respect  shall  be  the  Roman  Jupiter,  the  god  of  the 
Capitol.  To  this  god,  to  Jupiter  Capitolinus,  not  to 
his  own  Zeus  Olympios,  the  god  of  his  Greek  fathers, 
he  shall  erect  a  temple  in  his  capital  city  of  Antioch, 
and  adorn  it  with  gold  and  silver  and  precious  stones.^ 

Ver.  39. —  ^^  And  he  shall  deal  with  the  strojigest  for- 
tresses by  the  help  of  a  strange  god^^'^ — namely,  the 
CapitoHne  Jupiter  (Zeus  Polieus)— and  shall  crowd 
the  strongholds  of  Judaea  with  heathen  colonists  who 
worship  the  Tyrian  Hercules  (Melkart)  and  other 
idols;  and  to  these  heathen  he  shall  give  wealth  and 
power. 

Ver.  40. — But  his  evil  career  shall  be  cut  short. 
Egypt,  under  the  now-allied  brothers  Philometor  and 
Physkon,  shall  unite  to  thrust  at  him.  Antiochus  will 
advance  against  them  like  a  whirlwind,  with  many 
chariots  and  horsemen,  and  with  the  aid  of  a  fleet. 

Vv.  41-45. — In  the  course  of  his  march  he  shall  pass 


'  Polyb.,  xxvi.  lo  ;  2  Mace.  vi.  2  ;  Liv.,  xii.  20.  The  Hebrew  Eloah 
Mauzzim  is  understood  by  the  LXX.,  Theodotion,  the  Vulgate,  and 
Luther  to  be  a  god  called  Mauzzim  {Maui^dix) .  See  Herzog,  Real- 
EncycL,  s.v.  "  Meussin."  Cicero  (c.  Verr.,  vii.  72)  calls  the  Capitol  arx 
omnhim  naiionum.  The  reader  must  judge  for  himself  as  to  the 
validity  of  the  remark  of  Pusey  (p.  92),  that  "  all  this  is  alien  from 
the  character  of  Antiochus." 

-  R.V.     The  translation  is  difficult  and  uncertain. 


ANTIOCHUS  EPIPHANES  315 

through  Palestine,  ^^  the  glorious  landj^^  with  disastrous 
injury ;  but  Edom,  Moab,  and  the  bloom  of  the  kingdom 
of  Ammon  shall  escape  his  hand.  Egypt,  however, 
shall  not  escape.  By  the  aid  of  the  Libyans  and 
Ethiopians  who  are  in  his  train  he  shall  plunder  Egypt 
of  its  treasures.^ 

How  far  these  events  correspond  to  historic  realities 
is  uncertain.  Jerome  says  that  Antiochus  invaded 
Egypt  a  third  time  in  b.c.  165,  the  eleventh  year  of  his 
reign  ;  but  there  are  no  historic  traces  of  such  an 
invasion,  and  most  certainly  Antiochus  towards  the 
close  of  his  reign,  instead  of  being  enriched  with  vast 
Egyptian  spoils^  was  struggling  with  chronic  lack  of 
means.  Some  therefore  suppose  that  the  writer  com- 
posed and  pubHshed  his  enigmatic  sketch  of  these 
events  before  the  close  of  the  reign  of  Antiochus,  and 
that  he  is  here  passing  from  contemporary  fact  into  a 
region  of  ideal  anticipations  which  were  never  actually 
fulfilled. 

Ver.  43  (b.c.  165). — In  the  midst  of  this  devastating 
invasion  of  Egypt,  Antiochus  shall  be  troubled  with 
disquieting  rumours  of  troubles  in  Palestine  and  other 
realms  of  his  kingdom.  He  v/iil  set  out  with  utter  fury 
to  subjugate  and  to  destroy,  determining  above  all  to 
suppress  the  heroic  Maccabean  revolt  which  had  in- 
flicted such  humiliating  disasters  upon  his  generals, 
Seron,  Apollonius,  and  Lysias.^ 

'  The  LXX.  here  render  this  expression  (which  puzzled  them,  and 
which  they  omit  in  vv.  16,  41)  by  di\rj<ns.  Theodot.,  Tr]v  yrjv  tov 
Sa/3aet/>t. 

^  Ewald  takes  these  for  metaphoric  designations  of  the  Hellenising 
Jews.  Some  (e.g.,  Zftckler)  understand  these  verses  as  a  recapitula- 
tion of  the  exploits  of  Antiochus.  The  whole  clause  is  surrounded  by 
historic  uncertainties. 

'  The  origin  of  the  name  Maccabee  still  remains  uncertain.     Some 


3i6  THE  BOOK   OF  DANIEL 

Ver.  45  (b.c.  164). — He  shall  indeed  advance  so  far 
as  to  pitch  his  palatial  tent  ^'  between  the  sea  and  the 
mountain  of  the  High  Glory  ^^  ;  but  he  will  come  to  a 
disastrous  and  an  unassisted  end.^ 

These  latter  events  either  do  not  correspond  with  the 
actual  history,  or  cannot  be  verified.  So  far  as  we 
know  Antiochus  did  not  invade  Egypt  at  all  after 
B.C.  168.  Still  less  did  he  advance  from  Egypt,  or 
pitch  his  tent  anywhere  near  Mount  Zion.  Nor  did  he 
die  in  Palestine,  but  in  Persia  (b.c.  165).  The  writer, 
indeed,  strong  in  faith,  anticipated,  and  rightly,  that 
Antiochus  would  come  to  an  ignominious  and  a  sudden 
end — God  shooting  at  him  with  a  swift  arrow,  so  that 
he  should  be  wounded.  But  all  accurate  details  seem 
suddenly  to  stop  short  with  the  doings  in  the  fourth 
section,  which  may  refer  to  the  strange  conduct  of 
Antiochus  in  his  great  festival  in  honour  of  Jupiter  at 
Daphne.  Had  the  writer  published  his  book  after  this 
date,  he  could  not  surely  have  failed  to  speak  with 
triumphant  gratitude  and  exultation  of  the  heroic  stand 
made  by  Judas  Maccabaeus  and  the  splendid  victories 

make  it  stand  for  the  initials  of  the  Hebrew  words,  "  Who  among  the 
gods  is  like  Jehovah?"  in  Exod.  xv.  II  ;  or  of  Mattathias  Kohen 
(priest),  Ben-Johanan  {Biesenthal).  Others  make  it  mean  "the 
Hammerer"  (comp.  Charles  Martel).  See  Jost,  i.  Ii6;  Prideaux, 
ii.  199  (so  Grotius,  and  Buxtorf,  De  Abbi'eviaturis), 

^  Vulg.,  Aphadno.  The  LXX.  omit  it.  Theodot.,  Apadano ; 
Symm.,  "his  stable." 

2  Porphyry  says  that  "  he  pitched  his  tent  in  a  place  called 
Apedno,  between  the  Tigris  and  Euphrates  " ;  but  even  if  these 
rivers  should  be  called  seas,  they  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  Holy 
Mountain.  Apedno  seems  to  be  a  mere  guess  from  the  word  pSK, 
"palace"  or  "tent,"  in  this  verse.  See  Jer.  xliii:  10  (Targum). 
Roland,  however,  quotes  Procopius  {De  ccdif.  Jttstiniani,  ii.  4)  as 
authority  for  a  place  called  Apadnas,  near  Amida,  on  the  Tigris.  See 
Pusey,  p.  39. 


ANTIOCHUS  EPIPHANES  317 


which  restored  hope  and  glory  to  the  Holy  Land.  I 
therefore  regard  these  verses  as  a  description  rather  of 
ideal  expectation  than  of  historic  facts. 

We  find  notices  of  Antiochus  in  the  Books  of  Mac- 
cabees, in  Josephus,  in  St.  Jerome's  Commentary  on 
Daniel,  and  in  Appian's  Syriaca.  We  should  know 
more  of  him  and  be  better  able  to  explain  some  of  the 
allusions  in  this  chapter  if  the  writings  of  the  secular 
historians  had  not  come  down  to  us  in  so  fragmentary 
a  condition.  The  relevant  portions  of  Callinicus  Suto- 
ricus,  Diodorus  Siculus,  Polybius,  Posidonius,  Claudius, 
Theon,  Andronicus,  Alypius,  and  others  are  all  lost — 
except  a  few  fragments  which  we  have  at  second  or 
third  hand.  Porphyry  introduced  quotations  from  these 
authors  into  the  twelfth  book  of  his  Arguments  against 
the  Christians)  but  we  only  know  his  book  from  Jerome's 
ex-parte  quotations.  Other  Christian  treatises,  written 
in  answer  to  Porphyry  by  Apolhnaris,  Eusebius,  and 
Methodius,  are  only  preserved  in  a  few  sentences  by 
Nicetas  and  John  of  Damascus.  The  loss  of  Porphyry 
and  Apollinarius  is  especially  to  be  regretted.  Jerome 
says  that  it  was  the  extraordinarily  minute  correspond- 
ence of  this  chapter  of  Daniel  with  the  history  of 
Antiochus  Epiphanes  that  led  Porphyry  to  the  convic- 
tion that  it  only  contained  vaticinia  ex  eventu} 

Antiochus  died  at  Tabae  in  Paratacaene  on  the  fron- 
tiers of  Persia  and  Babylonia  about  b.c.  163.  The 
Jewish  account  of  his  remorseful  deathbed  may  be  read 
in  I  Mace.  vi.  1-16  :  '*  He  laid  him  down  upon  his 
bed,  and  fell  sick  for  grief;  and  there  he  continued 
many  days,  for  his  grief  was  ever  more  and  more ;  and 
he  made  account  that  he  should  die."     He  left  a  son, 

*  Jahn,  §  xcv 


3i8  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

Antiochus  Eupator,  aged-  nine,  under  the  charge  of 
his  flatterer  and  foster-brother  Philip.-^  Recalhng  the 
wrongs  he  had  inflicted  on  Judaea  and  Jerusalem,  he 
said  :  "I  perceive,  therefore,  that  for  this  cause  these 
troubles  are  come  upon  me ;  and,  behold,  I  perish 
through  great  grief  in  a  strange  land." 

^  2  Mace.  ix. ;  Jos.,  Antt.,  XII.  ix.  i,  2;  Milman,  Hist  of  the  Jews, 
ii.  9.  Appian  describes  his  lingering  and  wasting  illness  by  the 
word  (f>divo)v  [Syriaca,  66). 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE    EPILOGUE 

THE  twelfth  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  serves 
as  a  general  epilogue  to  the  Book,  and  is  as  Httle 
free  from  difficulties  in  the  interpretation  of  the  details 
as  are  the  other  apocalyptic  chapters. 

The  keynote,  however,  to  their  right  understanding 
must  be  given  in  the  words  ^'  At  that  timej^  with  which 
the  first  verse  opens.  The  words  can  only  mean  "  the 
time  "  spoken  of  at  the  end  of  the  last  chapter,  the  days 
of  that  final  effort  of  Antiochus  against  the  holy  people 
which  ended  in  his  miserable  death. 

"At  that  time,"  then — i.e.y  about  the  year  b.c.  163 — 
the  guardian  archangel  of  Israel,  "  Michael,  the  great 
prince  which  standeth  for  the  children  of  thy  people," 
shall  stand  up  for  their  deliverance. 

But  this  deliverance  should  resemble  many  similar 
crises  in  its  general  characteristics.  It  should  not  be 
immediate.  On  the  contrary,  it  should  be  preceded  by 
days  of  unparalleled  disorder  and  catastrophe — *^  a  time 
of  trouble,  such  as  never  was  since  there  was  a  nation 
even  to  that  same  time."  We  may,  for  instance,  compare 
with  this  the  similar  prophecy  of  Jeremiah  (xxx.  4-u)  : 
"And  these  are  the  words  which  the  Lord  spake  con- 
cerning Israel  and  concerning  Judah.  For  thus  saith 
the  Lord  ;  We  have  heard  a  voice  of  trembling,  of 
fear,  and  not  of  peace.  .  .  .  Alas  1  for  that  day  is  great, 

319 


320  THE  BOOK   OF  DANIEL 

SO  that  none  is  like  it :  it  is  even  the  time  of  Jacob's 
trouble  ;  but  he  shall  be  saved  out  of  it.  And  it  shall 
come  to  pass  in  that  day,  saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will 
burst  th}'  bonds.  .  .  .  Therefore  fear  thou  not,  O  Jacob, 
My  servant,  saith  the  Lord  ;  neither  be  dismayed,  O 
Israel.  .  .  .  For  I  am  with  thee,  saith  the  Lord,  to 
save  thee.  For  I  will  make  a  full  end  of  all  the  nations 
whither  I  have  scattered  thee,  but  I  will  not  make  a 
full  end  of  thee  :  but  I  will  correct  thee  with  judgment, 
and  will  in  nowise  leave  thee  unpunished."  ^ 

The  general  conception  is  so  common  as  even  to 
have  found  expression  in  proverbs, — such  as,  "  The 
night  is  darkest  just  before  the  dawn  "  ;  and,  "  When 
the  tale  of  bricks  is  doubled,  Moses  comes."  Some 
shadow  of  similar  individual  and  historic  experiences 
is  found  also  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans.  It  lies 
in  the  expression  6eo^  airo  fivX^^^l'^'  ^^^  ^^^^  ^"  ^^^ 
lines  of  Horace, — 

"  Nee  Deus  intersit  nisi  dignus  vindice  nodus 
Intersit." 

We  find  the  same  expectation  in  the  apocryphal 
Book  of  Enoch,^  and  we  find  it  reflected  in  the 
Revelation  of  St.  John,^  where  he  describes  the  devil 
as  let  loose  and  the  powers  of  evil  as  gathering  them- 
selves together  for  the  great  final  battle  of  Armageddon 
before  the  eternal  triumph  of  the  Lamb  and  of  His 
saints.  In  Rabbinic  literature  there  was  a  fixed 
anticipation  that  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  must 
inevitably  be  preceded  by  '*  pangs  "  or  "  birth-throes," 
of  which  the}^  spoke  as  the  n^EJ^D  'hi  }     These  views 


See  too  Joel  ii.  2.  ^  Rev.  xvi.  14,  xix.  19. 

Enoch  xc.  16,  *  Comp.  Matt.  xxiv.  6,  7,  21,  22. 


THE  EPILOGUE  321 


may  partly  have  been  founded  on  individual  and 
national  experience,  but  they  were  doubtless  deepened 
by  the  vision  of  Zechariah  (xii.). 

"  Behold,  a  day  of  the  Lord  cometh,  when  thy  spoil 
shall  be  divided  in  the  midst  of  thee.  For  I  will  gather 
all  nations  against  Jerusalem  to  battle  ;  and  the  city 
shall  be  taken,  and  the  houses  rifled,  and  the  women 
ravished  ;  and  half  of  the  people  shall  go  forth  into 
captivity,  and  the  residue  of  the  people  shall  not  be 
cut  off  from  the  city.  Then  shall  the  Lord  go  forth, 
and  fight  against  those  nations,  as  when  He  fought 
in  the  day  of  battle.  And  His  feet  shall  stand  in  that 
day  upon  the  Mount  of  Olives.  .  ,  .  And  it  shall  come 
to  pass  in  that  day,  that  the  light  shall  not  be  light, 
but  cold  and  ice:^  but  it  shall  be  one  day  that  is  known 
unto  the  Lord,  not  day  and  not  night :  but  it  shall 
come  to  pass  that  at  evening  time  there  shall  be  light."  ^ 

The  anticipation  of  the  saintly  writer  in  the  days 
of  the  early  Maccabean  uprising,  while  all  the  visible 
issues  were  still  uncertain,  and  hopes  as  yet  unaccom- 
plished could  only  be  read  by  the  eyes  of  faith,  were 
doubtless  of  a  similar  character.  When  he  wrote 
Antiochus  was  already  concentrating  his  powers  to 
advance  with  the  utmost  wrath  and  fury  against  the 
Holy  City.  Humanly  speaking,  it  was  certain  that 
the  holy  people  could  oppose  no  adequate  resistance 
to  his  overwhelming  forces,  in  which  he  would  doubtless 
be  able  to  enlist  contingents  from  many  allied  nations. 
What  could  ensue  but  immeasurable  calamity  to  the 
great  majority  ?  Michael  indeed,  their  prince,  should 
do  his  utmost   for  them ;  but  it  would  not  be  in  his 


*  Such  is  the  reading  of  the  LXX.,  Vulgate,  Peshitta,  Symmachus,  etc. 

*  Zech.  xiv.  i-7» 

21 


THE  BOOK   OF  DANIEL 


power  to  avert  the  misery  which  should  fall  on  the 
nation  generally. 

Nevertheless,  they  should  not  be  given  up  to  utter 
or  to  final  destruction.  As  in  the  days  of  the  Assyrians 
the  name  Shear-jashub,  which  Isaiah  gave  to  one  of 
his  young  sons,  was  a  sign  that  *'  a  remnant  should 
be  left,"  so  now  the  seer  is  assured  that  "  thy  people 
shall  be  delivered  " — at  any  rate  "  every  one  that  shall 
be  found  written  in  the  book." 

^'  Written  in  the  book  " — for  all  true  Israehtes  had 
ever  believed  that  a  book  of  record,  a  book  of  remem- 
brance, lies  ever  open  before  the  throne  of  God,  in 
which  are  inscribed  the  names  of  God's  faithful  ones ; 
as  well  as  that  awful  book  in  which  are  written  the  evil 
deeds  of  men.^  Thus  in  Exodus  (xxxii.  33)  we  read, 
"  Whosoever  hath  sinned  against  Me,  him  will  I  blot 
out  of  My  book,"  which  tells  us  of  the  records  against 
the  guilty.  In  Psalm  Ixix.  28  we  read,  "  Let  them  be 
blotted  out  of  the  book  of  life,  and  not  be  written  with 
the  righteous."  That  book  of  the  righteous  is  specially 
mentioned  by  Malachi :  *'  Then  they  that  feared  the 
Lord  spake  one  with  another :  and  the  Lord  hearkened 
and  heard,  and  a  book  of  remembrance  was  written 
before  him  for  them  that  feared  the  Lord  and  called 
upon  His  Name."^  And  St.  John  refers  to  these 
books  at  the  close  of  the  Apocalypse  :  ''  And  I  saw 
the  dead,  the  great  and  the  small,  standing  before  the 
throne;  and  books  were  opened  :  and  another  book  was 
opened,  which  is  the  book  of  life  :  and  the  dead  were 
judged  out  of  the  things  which  'were  written  in  the 
books,  according  to  their  works.   .   .   .  And  if  any  one 


'  Comp.  vii.  10:  "And  the  books  were  opened.' 
2  Mai.  iii.  16. 


THE  EPILOGUE  333 


was  not  found  written  in  the  book  of  life,  he  was  cast 
in  the  lake  of  fire."  ^ 

In  the  next  verse  the  seer  is  told  that  "  many  of 
them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake, 
some  to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to  shame  and  ever- 
lasting abhorrence."  ^ 

It  is  easy  to  glide  with  insincere  confidence  over 
the  difficulties  of  this  verse,  but  they  are  many. 

We  should  naturally  connect  it  with  what  goes 
before  as  a  reference  to  ''  that  time  " ;  and  if  so,  it 
would  seem  as  though — perhaps  with  reminiscences 
of  the  concluding  prophecy  of  Isaiah  ^ — the  writer  con- 
templated the  end  of  all  things  and  the  final  resurrection.* 
If  so,  we  have  here  another  instance  to  be  added  to 
the  many  in  which  this  prophetic  vision  of  the  future 
passed  from  an  immediate  horizon  to  another  infinitely 
distant.  And  if  that  be  the  correct  interpretation,  this 
is  the  earliest  trace  in  Scripture  of  the  doctrine  of 
individual  immortality.       Of  that    doctrine    there    was 


*  Rev.  XX.  12-15.  Compare  too  Phil,  iv,  3  :  "With  Clement  also, 
and  the  rest  of  my  fellow-workers,  whose  names  are  in  the  book 
of  life." 

^  "Many  sleepers  in  the  land  of  dust"  seems  to  mean  the  dead. 
Comp.  Jer.  li.  39;  Psalm  xxii.  29;  i  Thess.  iv.  14;  Acts  vii.  60.  For 
"  shame  "  see  Jer.  xxiii.  40.  The  word  for  "  abhorrence "  only 
occurs  in  Isa.  Ixvi.  24.  The  allusion  seems  to  be  to  the  di'dorao-ts 
Kpla-eujs  (John  v.  29),  the  8eijT€pos  Odvaros  of  Rev.  xx.  14.  Comp. 
Enoch  xxii. 

^  Isa.  Ixvi.  24. 

^  It  is  certain  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Resurrection  acquired  more 
clearness  in  the  minds  of  the  Jews  at  and  after  the  period  of  the 
Exile ;  nor  is  there  anything  derogatory  to  the  workings  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  which  lighteth  every  man,  in  the  view  which  supposes 
that  they  may  have  learnt  something  on  this  subject  from  the  Baby- 
lonians and  Ass5^rians.  See  the  testimonies  of  St.  Peter  and  St,  Paul 
as  to  some  degree  of  Ethnic  inspiration  in  Acts  x.  34,  35,  xvii.  25-31. 


324  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

no  full  knowledge — there  were  only  dim  prognosti- 
cations or  splendid  hopes  ^ — until  in  the  fulness  of  the 
times  Christ  brought  life  and  immortahty  to  light. 
For  instance,  the  passage  here  seems  to  be  doubly 
limited.  It  does  not  refer  to  mankind  in  general,  but 
only  to  members  of  the  chosen  people  ;  and  it  is  not 
said  that  all  men  shall  rise  again  and  receive  according 
to  their  works,  but  only  that  ''  many "  shall  rise  to 
receive  the  reward  of  true  life,^  while  others  shall  live 
indeed,  but  only  in  everlasting  shame. 

To  them  that  be  wise — to  ''the  teacher,"^  and  to 
those  that  turn  the  many  to  "  righteousness  " — there  is 
a  further  promise  of  glory.  They  "  shall  shine  as  the 
brightness  of  the  firmament,  and  as  the  stars  for  ever 
and  ever."  There  is  here,  perhaps,  a  reminiscence  of 
Prov.  iv.  1 8,  19,  which  tells  us  that  the  way  of  the 
wicked  is  as  darkness,  whereas  the  path  of  the  just  is 
as  the  shining  light  that  shineth  more  and  more  unto 
the  perfect  day.  Our  Lord  uses  a  similar  metaphor  in 
his  explanation  of  the  Parable  of  the  Tares  :  "  Then 
shall  the  righteous  shine  forth  as  the  sun  in  the  king- 
dom of  their  Father."  *  We  find  it  once  again  in  the 
last  verse  of  the  Epistle  of  St.  James  :  ''  Let  him  know, 
that  he  who  hath   converted  a  sinner  from  the  error 


'  See  Ezek.  xxxvii.  1-4. 

"^  Theodoret  says  that  "many"  means  "all,"  as  in  Rom.  v.  15; 
but  there  it  is  "  the  many,"  and  the  parallel  is  altogether  defective. 
Hofmann  gets  over  the  difficulty  by  rendering  it,  "And  in  multitudes 
shall  they  arise."  Many  commentators  explain  it  not  of  the  final 
but  of  some  partial  resurrection.  Few  will  now  be  content  with 
such  autocratic  remarks  as  that  of  Calvin :  "  Multos  hie  ponit  pro 
omnibus  ut  certum  est." 

»  Lit.  "those  that  justify  the  multitude."  Comp.  Isa.  liii.  1 1,  and 
see  Dan.  xi.  33-35. 

*  Matt,  xiii.  43;    I  Cor.  xv,  41  ;    Rev.  iii  28. 


THE  EPILOGUE  32S 


of  his  way  shall  save  a  soul  from  death,  and  shall  hide 
a  multitude  of  sins." 

But  there  is  a  further  indication  that  the  writer 
expected  this  final  consummation  to  take  place  imme- 
diately after  the  troubles  of  the  Antiochian  assault ;  for 
he  describes  the  angel  Gabriel  as  bidding  Daniel  '*  to 
seal  the  Book  even  to  the  time  of  the  end."  Now 
as  it  is  clear  that  the  Book  was,  on  any  hypothesis, 
meant  for  the  special  consolation  of  the  persecuted 
Jews  under  the  cruel  sway  of  the  Seleucid  King,  and 
that  then  first  could  the  Book  be  understood,  the 
writer  evidently  looked  for  the  fulfilment  of  his  last 
prophecies  at  the  termination  of  these  troubles.  This 
meaning  is  a  little  obscured  by  the  rendering,  '^  many 
shall  run  to  andfro^  and  knowledge  shall  be  increased." 
Ewald,  Maurer,  and  Hitzig  take  the  verse,  which 
literally  implies  movement  hither  and  thither,  in  the 
sense,  ^'  many  shall  peruse  the  Book."  ^  Mr.  Bevan, 
however,  from  a  consideration  of  the  Septuagint  Version 
of  the  words,  "  and  knowledge  shall  be  increased  " — 
for  which  they  read,  *'and  the  land  be  filled  with 
injustice  "—thinks  that  the  original  rendering  would  be 
represented  by,  *'  many  shall  rush  hither  and  thither, 
and  many  shall  be  the  calamities."  In  other  words, 
"  the  revelation  must  remain  concealed,  because  there 
is  to  ensue  a  long  period  of  commotion  and  distress."  ^ 
If  we  have  been  convinced  by  the  concurrence  of 
many  irresistible  arguments  that  the  Book  of  Daniel 
is  the  product  of  the  epoch  which  it  most  minutely 
describes,  we  can  only  see  in  this  verse  a  part  of  the 


•  Comp.  Zech.  iv.  10.     This  sense  cannot  be  rigidly  established. 
^  He   refers   to    i    Mace.    i.  9,    which  says   of  the   successors   of 
Alexander,  /cai  cttX^^ wav  KaKb.  iv  tji  y-jj, 


326  THE  BOOK   OF  DANIEL 

literary  form  which  the  Book  necessarily  assumed  as 
the  vehicle  for  its  lofty  and  encouraging  messages. 

The  angel  here  ceases  to  speak,  and  Daniel,  look- 
ing round  him,  becomes  aware  of  the  presence  of 
two  other  celestial  beings,  one  of  whom  stood  on 
either  bank  of  the  river. ^  "  And  one  said  to  the 
man  clothed  in  linen,  which  was  above  the  waters  of 
the  river,  How  long  to  the  end  of  these  wonders  ?  "  ^ 
There  is  a  certain  grandeur  in  the  vagueness  of 
description,  but  the  speaker  seems  to  be  one  of  the 
two  angels  standing  on  either  ''  lip "  of  the  Tigris. 
''The  man  clothed  in  linen,"  who  is  hovering  in  the 
air  above  the  waters  of  the  river,  is  the  same  being 
who  in  viii.  i6  wears  "  the  appearance  of  a  man," 
and  calls  "from  between  the  banks  of  Ulai"  to 
Gabriel  that  he  is  to  make  Daniel  understand  the 
vision.  He  is  also,  doubtless,  the  "  one  man  clothed 
in  linen,  whose  loins  were  girded  with  fine  gold  of 
Uphaz,  his  body  like  the  beryl,  his  face  as  flashing- 
lightning,  his  eyes  as  burning  torches,  and  his  voice 
like  the  deep  murmur  of  a  multitude,"  who  strikes 
such  terror  into  Daniel  and  his  comrades  in  the  vision 
of  chap.  X.  5,  6  ; — and  though  all  is  left  uncertain,  "  the 
great  prince  Michael  "  may  perhaps  be  intended. 

The  question  how  long  these  marvels  were  to  last, 
and  at  what  period  the  promised  deliverance  should 
be  accomplished,  was  one  which  would  naturally  have 
the  intensest  interest  to  those  Jews  who — in  the  agonies 

'  Jerome  guesses  that  they  are  the  angels  of  Persia  and  Greece. 
The  word  "IN^Hj  lit.  "the  canal,"  is  often  used  of  the  Nile. 

2  The  LXX.  reads  koL  elira,  "and  I  said,"  making  Daniel  the 
speaker  (so  too  the  Vulgate)  ;  but  the  form  of  the  passage  is  so 
closely  analogous  to  viii.  13,  as  to  leave  no  doubt  that  here  too  "  one 
saint  is  speaking  to  another  saint." 


THE  EPILOGUE  327 


of  the  Antiochian  persecution  and  at  the  beginning  of 
the  'Mittle  help"  caused  by  the  Maccabean  uprising — 
read  for  the  first  time  the  fearful  yet  consolatory  and 
inspiring  pages  of  this  nfew  apocalypse.  The  answer 
is  uttered  with  the  most  solemn  emphasis.  The  Vision 
of  the  priest-like  and  gold-girded  angel,  as  he  hovers 
above  the  river-flood,  ''  held  up  both  his  hands  to 
heaven,"  and  swears  by  Him  that  liveth  for  ever  and 
ever  that  the  continuance  of  the  afQiction  shall  be  ^'  for 
a  time,  times,  and  a  half."  So  Abraham,  to  emphasise 
his  refusal  of  any  gain  from  the  King  of  Sodom,  says 
that  he  has  ''  lifted  up  his  hand  unto  the  Lord,  the 
Most  High  God,  that  he  would  not  take  from  a  thread 
to  a  shoe-latchet."  And  in  Exod.  vi.  8,  when  Jehovah 
says  ''  I  did  swear,"  the  expression  means  literally, 
'^  I  lifted  up  My  hand!'^  It  is  the  natural  attitude  of 
calling  God  to  witness  ;  and  in  Rev.  x.  5,  6,  with  a 
reminiscence  of  this  passage,  the  angel  is  described 
as  standing  on  the  sea,  and  lifting  his  right  hand  to 
heaven  to  swear  a  mighty  oath  that  there  should  be  no 
longer  delay. 

The  *'  time,  two  times,  and  half  a  time  "  of  course 
means  three  years  and  a  half,  as  in  vii.  25.  There  can 
be  little  doubt  that  their  commencement  is  the  terminus 
a  quo  which  is  expressly  mentioned  in  ver.  1 1  :  *'  the 
time  that  the  daily  sacrifice  shall  be  taken  away." 
We  have  already  had  occasion  to  see  that  three  years, 
with  a  margin  which  seems  to  have  been  variously 
computed,  does  roughly  correspond  to  the  continuance 
of  that  total  desecration  of  the  Temple,  and  extinction 
of  the  most  characteristic  rites  of  Judaism,  which  pre- 


'  Comp.  Gen.  xiv.  22  ;   Deut.  xxxii.  40,   "  For  I  lift  up    My  hand 
unto  heaven,  and  say,  I  live  for  ever  " ;  Ezek.  xx.  5,  6,  etc. 


328  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

ceded  the  death  of  Antiochus  and  the  triumph  of  the 
national  cause. 

Unhappily  the  reading,  rendering,  and  interpretation 
of  the  next  clause  of  the  angel's  oath  are  obscure  and 
uncertain.  It  is  rendered  in  the  R.V.,  ''  and  when 
they  have  made  an  end  of  breaking  in  pieces  the  power 
of  the  holy  people,  all  these  things  shall  be  finished." 
As  to  the  exact  translation  many  scholars  differ.  Von 
Lengerke  translates  it,  ''  and  when  the  scattering  of 
a  part  of  the  holy  people  should  come  to  an  end,  all 
this  should  be  ended."  The  Septuagint  Version  is 
wholly  unintelligible.  Mr,  Bevan  suggests  an  altera- 
tion of  the  text  which  would  imply  that,  "when  the 
power  of  the  shatterer  of  the  holy  people  \i.e.^  Anti- 
ochus] should  come  to  an  end,  all  these  things  should 
be  ended."  This  no  doubt  would  not  only  give  a  very 
clear  sense,  but  also  one  which  would  be  identical  with 
the  prophecy  of  vii.  25,  that  "'  they  [the  times  and  the 
law]  shall  be  given  unto  his  hand  until  a  time  and 
times  and  half  a  time."  ^  But  if  we  stop  short  at  the 
desperate  and  uncertain  expedient  of  correcting  the 
original  Hebrew,  we  can  only  regard  the  words  as 
implying  (in  the  rendering  of  our  A.V.  and  R.V.)  that 
the  persecution  and  suppression  of  Israel  should  pro- 
ceed to  their  extremest  limit,  before  the  woe  was 
ended ;  and  of  this  we  have  already  been  assured.^ 

The  writer,  in  the  person  of  Daniel,  is  perplexed  by 
the  angel's  oath,  and  yearns  for  further  enlightenment 
and  certitude.     He  makes  an  appeal  to  the  vision  with 

'  Those  who  can  rest  content  with  such  exegesis  may  explain  this 
to  imply  that  "  the  reign  of  antichrist  will  be  divided  into  three 
periods — the  first  long,  the  second  longer,  the  third  shortest  of  all," 
just  as  the  seventy  weeks  of  chap.  ix.  are  composed  of  7  x  62  x  I. 

'^  By  way  of  comment  see  I  Mace.  v. ;  2  Mace.  viii. 


THE  EPILOGUE  329 


the  question,  *'  O.  my  lord,  what  shall  be  the  issue  [or, 
latter  end]  of  these  things  ?  "  In  answer  he  is  simply 
bidden  to  go  his  way — i.e.,  to  be  at  peace,  and  leave  all 
these  events  to  God,^  since  the  words  are  shut  up  and 
sealed  till  the  time  of  the  end.  In  other  words,  the 
Daniel  of  the  Persian  Court  could  not  possibly  have 
attached  any  sort  of  definite  meaning  to  minutely  detailed 
predictions  affecting  the  existence  of  empires  which 
would  not  so  much  as  emerge  on  the  horizon  till  cen- 
turies after  his  death.  These  later  visions  could  only 
be  apprehended  by  the  contemporaries  of  the  events 
which  they  shadowed  forth. 

"  Many,"  continued  the  angel,  "  shall  purify  them- 
selves, and  make  themselves  white,  and  be  refined  ; 
but  the  wicked  shall  do  wickedly  :  and  none  of  the 
wicked  shall  understand ;  the  teachers  shall  under- 
stand." ^ 

The  verse  describes  the  deep  divisions  which  should 
be  cleft  among  the  Jews  by  the  intrigues  and  persecu- 
tions of  Antiochus.  Many  would  cling  to  their  ancient 
and  sacred  institutions,  and  purified  by  pain,  purged 
from  all  dross  of  worldliness  and  hypocrisy  in  the  fires 
of  afQiction,  like  gold  in  the  furnace,  would  form  the  new 
parties  of  the  Chasidim  and  the  Anavim^  "  the  pious  " 
and  "  the  poor."  They  would  be  such  men  as  the  good 
high  priest  Onias,  Mattathias  of  Modin  and  his  glorious 
sons,  the  scribe  Eleazar,  and  the  seven  dauntless 
martyrs,  sons  of  the  holy  woman  who  unflinchingly 
watched  their  agonies  and  encouraged  them  to  die 
rather  than  to  apostatise.  But  the  wicked  would  con- 
tinue to  be   void  of  all  understanding,  and  would  go 


1'  H?  is  encouraging,  as  in  ver.  13. 
"^  Comp.  Rev.  xxii.  ii. 


THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


on  still  in  their  wickedness,  like  Jason  and  Menelaus, 
the  renegade  usurpers  of  the  high-priesthood.  These 
and  the  whole  Hellenising  party  among  the  Jews,  for 
the  sake  of  gain,  plunged  into  heathen  practices,  made 
abominable  offerings  to  gods  which  were  no  gods,  and 
in  order  to  take  part  in  the  naked  contests  of  the  Greek 
gymnasium  which  they  had  set  up  in  Jerusalem,  delibe- 
rately attempted  to  obliterate  the  seal  of  circumcision 
which  was  the  covenant  pledge  of  their  national  con 
secration  to  the  Jehovah  of  their  fathers. 

"  And  from  the  time  that  the  continual  burnt  offering 
shall  be  taken  away,  and  the  abomination  that  maketh 
desolate  set  up,  there  shall  be  a  thousand  two  hundred 
and  ninety  days." 

If  we  suppose  the  year  to  consist  of  twelve  months 
of  thirty  days,  then  (with  the  insertion  of  one  intercalary 
month  of  thirty  days)  twtlve  hundred  and  ninety  days 
is  exactly  three  and  a  half  years.  We  are,  however, 
faced  by  the  difficulty  that  the  time  from  the  desecration 
of  the  Temple  till  its  reconsecration  by  Judas  Maccabgeus 
seems  to  have  been  exactly  three  years ;  ^  and  if  that 
view  be  founded  on  correct  chronology,  we  can  give 
no  exact  interpretation  of  the  very  specific  date  here 
furnished. 

Our  difficulties  are  increased  by  the  next  clause : 
^'  Blessed  is  he  that  waiteth,  and  cometh  to  the  thousand 
three  hundred  and  five  and  thirty  days." 

All  that  we  can  conjecture  from  this  is  that,  at  the 


'  The  small  heathen  altar  to  Zens  was  built  by  Antiochus  upon  the 
great  altar  of  burnt  offering  on  Kisleu  15,  b.c.  168.  The  revolt  of 
Mattathias  and  his  seven  sons  began  b.c.  167.  Judas  the  Maccabee 
defeated  the  Syi'ian  generals  Apollonius,  Seron,  and  Gorgias  b.c.  166, 
and  Lysias  at  Beth-sur  in  B.C.  165.  He  cleansed  and  rededicated  the 
Temple  on  Kisleu  25,  b.c.  165. 


THE  EPILOGUE  331 


close  of  twelve  hundred  and  ninety  days,  by  the  writer's 
reckoning  from  the  cessation  of  the  daily  burnt  offering, 
and  the  erection  of  the  heathen  abomination  which  drove 
all  faithful  Jews  from  the  Temple,  up  to  the  date  of 
some  marked  deliverance,  would  be  three  and  a  half 
years,  but  that  this  deliverance  would  be  less  complete 
and  beatific  than  another  and  later  deliverance  which 
would  not  occur  till  forty-five  days  later.-^ 

Reams  of  conjecture  and  dubious  history  and  imagi- 
nauve  chronology  have  been  expended  upon  the  effort 
to  give  any  interpretation  of  these  precise  data  which 
can  pretend  to  the  dignity  of  firm  or  scientific  exegesis. 
Some,  for  instance,  like  Keil,  regard  the  numbers  as 
symbolical^  which  is  equivalent  to  the  admission  that 
they  have  little  or  no  bearing  on  literal  history ;  others 
suppose  that  they  are  conjectural^  having  been  penned 
before  the  actual  termination  of  the  Seleucid  troubles. 
Others  regard  them  as  only  intended  to  represent  round 
numbers.  Others  again  attempt  to  give  them  historic 
accuracy  by  various  manipulations  of  the  dates  and 
events  in  and  after  the  reign  of  Antiochus.  Others 
relegate  the  entire  vision  to  periods  separated  from  the 
Maccabean  age  by  hundreds  of  years,  or  even  into  the 
remotest  future.  And  none  of  these  commentators,  by 
their  researches  and  combinations,  have  succeeded  in 
estabhshing  the  smallest  approach  to  conviction  in  the 
minds  of  those  who  take  the  other  viev/s.     There  can 

^  The  "  time,  times,  and  a  half."  The  1,290  da3's,  1,335  days,  and 
the  1,150  days,  and  the  2,300  days  of  viii.  14  all  agree  in  indicating 
three  years  with  a  shorter  or  longer  fraction.  It  will  be  observed 
that  in  each  case  there  is  a  certain  reticence  or  vagueness  as  to  the 
terminus  ad  quern.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  in  Rev.  xi.  2,  3,  the 
period  of  42  months  =  1,260  days  =  3|  years  of  months  of  30  days 
with  no  intercalary  month. 


33^  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

be  little  doubt  that  to  the  writer  and  his  readers  the 
passage  pointed  either  to  very  confident  expectations 
or  very  well-understood  realities ;  but  for  us  the  exact 
clue  to  the  meaning  is  lost.  All  that  can  be  said  is 
that  we  should  probably  understand  the  dates  better 
if  our  knowledge  of  the  history  of  B.C.  165-164  was 
more  complete.  We  are  forced  to  content  ourselves 
with  their  general  significance.  It  is  easy  to  record 
and  to  multiply  elaborate  guesses,  and  to  deceive  our- 
selves with  the  merest  pretence  and  semblance  of 
certainty.  For  reverent  and  severely  honest  inquiries 
it  seems  safer  and  wiser  to  study  and  profit  by  the 
great  lessons  and  examples  clearly  set  before  us  in 
the  Book  of  Daniel,  but,  as  regards  many  of  its  un- 
solved difficulties,  to  obey  the  wise  exhortation  of  the 
Rabbis, — 

"  Learn  to  say,  *  I  do  not  know.' " 


APPROXIMATE   CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLES 


B.C. 

B.C. 

Jehoiakim 

608-597 

Malachi     ....  420 

Zedekiah  . 

597-588 

Alexander  the  Great   in- 

Jerusalem taken 

588 

vades  Persia .        .        .  334 

Death  of  Nebuchadrezzar 

561 

Battle  of  Granicus     .         .  334 

Evil-merodach  . 

.    561 

Battle  of  Issus  .        .        .  333 

Neriglissar 

.  559 

Battle  of  Arbela        .        .331 

Laborosoarchod 

555 

Death    of    Darius    Codo- 

Nabunaid  . 

555 

mannus.         .         .         .  330 

Capture  of  Babylon 

538 

Death  of  Alexander  .         .  323 

Decree  of  Cyrus 

.536 

Ptolemy    Soter     captures 

Cambyses 

529 

Jerusalem      .         .         .  320 

Darius,  son  of  Hystaspes 

.  521 

Simon     the      Just      high 

Dedication  of  the  Seconc 

priest     ....  310 

Temple . 

516 

Beginning    of    Septuagint 

Battle  of  Salamis 

480 

translation     .         .         .  284 

Ezra  . 

458 

Antiochus  the  Great  con- 

Nehemiah. 

444 

quers  Palestine      .      (?)  202 

Nehemiah's  reforms 

428 

B.C. 

Accession  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes      .  176 
Joshua  (Jason),  brother  of  Onias  III., 
gets  the  priesthood  by  bribery,  and 
promotes  H  ellenism  among  the  J  ews  1 74 
First  expedition  of  Antiochus  against 

Egypt.— Murder  of  Onias  III. .         .171 
His  second  expedition  .         .      (?)  170 

His  plunder  of  the  Temple  and  mas- 
sacre at  Jerusalem  .         .         .         .170 
Third  expedition  of  Antiochus    .         .169 
Apollonius,  the  general  of  Antiochus, 
advances  against  Jerusalem  with  an 
army   of  22,000. — Massacre. — The 
abomination  of  desolation   in   the 
333 


Dan.  vii.  8,  20. 


Dan.  xi.  22-24,  ix.  26. 


Dan.  viii.  9, 10;  xi.  28. 
Dan.  xi,  29,  30. 


Dan,  vii.  21,  24,  25  ; 


334     CHRONOLOGICAL  AND   GENEALOGICAL   TABLES 


Temple. — Antiochus  carries  off  some  viii.  11-13,  24,  25  ; 

of  the  holy  vessels  (i  Mace.  i.  25);  xi.  30-35,  etc. 

forbids    circumcision ;     burns     the 

books  of  the  Law ;  puts  down  the 

daily  sacrifice  ....         169-8 
Desecration     of    the    Temple. — Jews 

compelled    to    pay    public    honour 

to     false     gods. — Faithfulness     of 

scribes   and  Chasidim. — Revolt    ol 

Maccabees 167     Dan.  xi.  34,  35;  xii.  3. 

Jewish  war  of  independence. — Death 

of    the    priest    Mattathias. — Judas 

Maccabseus  defeats  Lysias       .         .   166 
Battles   of   Beth-zur  and  Emmaus. —  Dan.  vii.  11,  26;  viii. 

Purification  of  Temple  (Kisleu  25).   165  14;  xi.  45,  etc. 

Death  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes    .         .   163 
Judas  Maccabaeus  dies    in   battle   at 

Eleasa 161 


GENEALOGICAL  TABLE  OF  THE  LAGIDiE, 
PTOLEMIES,  AND  SELEUCID^ 

Seleucus  Nicator, 

B.C.  312-280.  Ptolemy  Soter  (Dan.  xi.  5). 

Antiochus  I.  (Soter),  Ptolemy  Philadelphus. 

B.C.  280.  I 


Laodice=pAntiochus  II.  (Theos)=pBerenice.  Ptolemy  Euergetes, 

B.C.  260-246.  I  B.C.  285-247  (Dan.  xi.  7, 8). 

An  infant,  murdered  | 

by  Laodice. 


Seleucus  II.       Antiochus.  Ptolemy  Philopator, 

(Kallinikos),  ^-C-  222-205  (Dan.  xi.  10-12). 


d.  B.C.  226. 

j_ 


Seleucus  III.        Antiochus  III.  ("  the  Great  "), 
(Keraunos).  B.C.  224  (Dan.  xi.  10-12,  14). 

Seleucus  Antiochus  IV.  Cleopatra=pPtolemy  Epiphanes, 

Philopator.  (Epiphanes),  b.c.  175.  1     B.C.  205-181  (Dan.  xi.  14). 

Demetrius.  ^^^j^'^Jl'^^  V.,         ptdem^y  PhilJmetor,  Ptolemy 

B.C.  104.  B  c.  181-146  (Dan.  xi.  25-30).     Euergetes  II. 

For  a  fuller  list  and  further  identifications  see  Driver,  pp.  461, 
462,  and  supra.  For  the  genealogical  table  see  Mr.  Deane  (Bishop 
Ellicott's  Comnientary,  v.  402).' 


Date  Due 

■.^^mm^ 

..,-.-«---^^" 

t«iv,- 

AP-frt-*-«f 

"* 

}\\i  pi'iiii 

w 

i.*!*.!^^ 

lisi^i:;|:5 

^ 

1^ 


.«VT^OJ^. 


"1012  00057  3453 


'^^■/.ij&m 


